This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Atheism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Philosophy: Philosophers / Religion / Contemporary B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Philosophy of religion Contemporary philosophy Religion B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Theology B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2005 – 2006 2007

There are no serious critiques of Harris' sophomoric thought. There are softball objections to his absurd beliefs and then detailed repudiations. The effect is that the article comes off like Harris or his wife wrote it. Harris deserves the criticism he offers to religion. He has no significant achievements in his life, his thought is deeply flawed and juvenile, and this article makes him out to be some kind of great thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harris rarely pronounces himself that crudely about islam. He may be a critic, but in this matter, it makes him sound like he is extremely verbal against islam. I consider the article too colored. Perhaps there are some changes to be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.61.141 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person is totally irrelevant to Sam Harris. Wikipedia is not a news source, and we do not need to present opposing viewpoints on biography pages. The same applies to adding Harris' name to Tippett's page. Paisan30 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Sam Harris commented in writing on the Catholic practice of declaring people "saints" based on miracles that are claimed after the death of the prospective saint? An example would the current case on the discussion page of Father Damien at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77373 cat lick 48295 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken out of context and means something completely different. I believe a clarification is in order for the Critisism section. I'm a bad writer so I can't seem to insert a clarification without messing everything up.

He means that for people who believe in these religions, this can be ethically true. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.254 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we think he meant is pretty much irrelevant here. Rightly or wrongly, he's been criticized on the basis of that statement. The text quotes the criticisms verbatim. If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well. We don't need to be deciding who's right here, and arguing on Harris' behalf - he's a big boy, and can take care of himself when debating these issues. EastTN (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well"

Did you not read the link just posted above(not by me, btw)? He clearly gives a response to that criticism: "My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pages 52-53 of The End of Faith):

The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any I have written:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous. "--72.188.156.191 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I followed the link and took a quick look. My personal preference would be to have a published source, but this does look like a reliable source for what Mr. Harris has to say. I'd support adding it to the end of the paragraph with text along the lines of:

Harris has said in response that the passage has been misconstrued by his critics. Specifically, he says that "[s]ome critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. . . . I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous."

The website should be used as the citation. This would allow readers to decide for themselves whether his statements are inappropriate, or if he's being inappropriately vilified. I do not think it's appropriate to drop the criticism and his response entirely. EastTN (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps allowing the reader to understand the extent of the critics' intellectual dishonesty where it comes to quoting out of context will dissuade critics from doing it in the future. Ninahexan (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this bigoted Islamophobic fraud thinks that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to pray in America (given his opposition to Park51) and that Islamophobia doesn't exist (despite the many hate crimes against Muslims in the past year), I don't see a proper context for his rather insane remarks.Shabeki (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by what definition and credentials is Harris a philosopher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no response from anyone, since Harris only has an undergrad in philosophy, I am removing the reference that he is a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has written about metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy. He has also written about ethics and logic, and I am sure I am missing something. He has some education in philosophy, but he has contributed to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any misunderstanding (and hopefully promote discussion of this issue if need be), I am again posting on the issue of using the word "philosopher" in Harris' bio. Harris has no academic credentials above an undergraduate degree in philosophy, he does not and has not contributed to any philosophy journals, nor is he pursuing any advanced degree in philosophy. Even if one is to go down to Borders or Barns and Noble, Harris' two works are not kept in the philosophy section, and are not categorized in this way by these two organizations. I see no indication that he is, or is even considered by anyone to be a philosopher. Because of these reasons, I move to exclude referring to Harris as a philosopher in his bio. Dantedanti (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal academic qualifications are not required to define anyone as a philospher. Philosophy is simply the pursuit of knowledge. We are all Philosophers to some extent. I find formal curricula for philosophy to be quite frankly a contradiction in terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.169.17 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would agree that Philosophy is simply "the pursuit of knowledge", or else all fields of human activity which pursue knowledge would be philosophy instead of just having philosophical baggage. Though common people can and often do ask philosophical questions, they are not pursuing a career or vocation as a philosopher. I am not sure what you mean or what you are getting at when you say that the formal curricula is a contradiction in terms. Dantedanti (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that he is highly engaged with philospohical concepts and debates and contributes to philosophical discourse. My dictionary says nothing about having to have a post-grad degree or any formal degree for that matter to be defined as a philosopher. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this doesn't get us any closer to identifying him as a philosopher. He engages primarily with political topics, and very rarely with philosophical questions. Since no authoritative sources identify him as a philosopher, and as far as I can tell, no professional philosophers identify him as a philosopher, we should leave the article as is. Dantedanti (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with the rest of the article, and with previous discussions, I am removing the reference that Harris deals with "philosophy of mind". This is not consistent with descriptions and reviews of his work. Dantedanti (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is definitely a philosopher. First, he calls himself a philosopher. His work in neuroscience is specifically directed at answering philosophical questions. In one interview, he compared himself to Patricia Churchland, a neurophilosopher. He made the excellent point that these distinctions between fields are superficial, and we create them. Churchland and Harris do almost identical work in neuroscience. How can you say that one is a philosopher and one is not? Second, Harris has done extensive practice in Eastern philosophy. Are you to be so chauvinistic as to deny the Eastern world of the word "philosophy"? Harris does admit that this is more accurately called "the Eastern contemplative tradition", but again, where do you draw the line? I would argue that this still qualifies as philosophy. Don't be too narrow with your definitions. Harris is a neurophilosopher and an expert in Eastern philosophy. Therefore, Sam Harris is a philosopher. You are short-changing him and his expertise by merely calling him an "author." Many people are authors, and most of them do not have the expertise that Harris does. User:ArcadianGenesis

I agree, he has a degree in philosophy (even if that's just an undergrad) and identifies as such. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But as long as he has detractors, people will argue endlessly to "short-change" him. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris is not identified as a philosopher by anyone other than himself, and having an undergrad in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. His books are not kept in the philosophy section of the major book retailers and his work is not comparable to the Churchlands. We've already been through this; Harris' own opinions on the term philosophy are moderately irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantedanti (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would say that his degree in philosophy is irrelevant. Look at the article on neurophilosophy, and you should instantly understand that Sam Harris is a neurophilosopher. If you still disagree with this new assertion, please provide new reasons. Otherwise, don't edit the article. User:ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.241.55 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harris's work is not categorized as neurophilosophy. If you think he's a neurophilosopher, support your assertion with your reasons. Do not edit the article until a reasonable discussion has been had. Dantedanti (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can honestly read this article, even as written, and say that one can be a professional author dealing with morality and ethics and how one ought to reason, and NOT be a philosopher...I would be surprised. You don't need to have a degree to be a philosopher, thats an extremely absurd proposition. And he does have a degree, besides. I don't really understand in the slightest why a few editors would insist he's not a philosopher, these are all philosophical ideas. Simply because they cross over into politics doesn't make them not philosophical. 71.195.86.253 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you mean philosopher in the more general or common way; in which case, my grandmother is a philosopher every Thursday night at the dinner table when she rants about reason and ethics. As has been gone over many times, Harris is not a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.225.97 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a philosopher because a reliable third party source describes him that way --71.85.212.80 (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A term like philosopher is much broader than medical doctor. With "medical doctor", it's quite clear that someone is expected to have completed the highest form of certification and training. Someone can practice medicine, of course, and not be a doctor (person administering CPR, for example). Philosophy is different; it's a field where pedigree isn't supposed to matter, and people advance to prominence because of their reasoning. Harris is one such person. Though to be fair, I think he would rather be called a "neuroscientist" or "neurophilosopher" as he is completing his PhD in neuroscience and studying morality by evaluating brain states. PalindromeKitty (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an online *encyclopedia* it should use such terms as "philosopher" in the academic sense. To those who posit such notions that the term is of a broader meaning than that of other words is considering the laymen's meaning of the word. This isn't ancient Greece where a person may justifiably be labeled a philosopher due to their wisdom. With that said, Sam Harris is not considered an academic philosopher by the field of philosophy. Rather, he is considered a public intellectual, a leading figure in the New Atheist movement, and now recently a neuroscientist. Merely that he has written a handful of articles on ethics and metaphysics does not qualify him as such. If he were to hold some type of position within a philosophy department at the university level, then this would be a completely different tale. Note that in science you can be considered a professional scientist regardless of whether you teach at a university (e.g. working in research labs, for the government, etc. still qualifies you as such) while in philosophy there are very few examples of an academic philosopher never having worked in its academic field. One more point is to the above who mentioned neurophilosophy. While a good point, neurophilosophy deals primarily in modularity of the brain and whether or not there is a distinction between the mind and the brain or whether it is one in the same (i.e. monism vs. dualism as general terms). If there is a time where Sam Harris begins research in these areas, then the above point may be strong justification for him being a termed a philosopher. For now, however, I will remove the label "philosopher" from his introductory sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.149.125 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Numerous reliable sources, both academic and journalistic, describe him as a philosopher, so per Wikipedia policy his Wikipedia article describes him as such. If equally reliable sources are produced that adequately refute that description, then the matter may be revisited. I have yet to see an RS dispute that description. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not disputing that one of CNN's articles described Sam has a philosopher, I think we can do better than using a news media outlet to verify someone's credentials. Furthermore, I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher. These are specialized professions. I think it would be better to split the current lede sentence into two sentences, with the second sentence describing him as having academic credentials in neuroscience and philosophy, which is true and more accurate. Thoughts. danielkueh (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News media outlets, in general, describe him as a philosopher. Not just CNN; [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. "Professions", as a general rule, are specialized ... indeed. They require some level of education, and active engagement in the field. Point? Harris self-identifies as such; news sources describe him as such. Doctors of Philosophy refer to the "philosopher Sam Harris" in Philosophy periodicals and journals [5], [6]. He is described as such in peer-reviewed academic journals as well (just search Humanity & Society; Independent Review; The Philosophers' Magazine; etc.). As I asked above, is there any reliably sourced refutation to the reliably sourced descriptions? I know there are plenty of Wikipedia editor-generated refutations, as the guy obviously has critics, but Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk)

Xenophrenic, first of all, you need to assume good faith (wp:agf). The editors who dispute this description are not necessarily critics of Sam Harris. They are just concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person and so we have to be careful about how we portray or describe them wp:blp. As one tongue-in-cheek commentator said, there is no strong consensus for what a philosopher is [7]. Second, please don't play this game of wikilawyering (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). It is tiring and quite patronizing. Granted, I'm citing rules here because I wish to demonstrate to you that I'm well aware of them and I'm not by any a stretch of the imagination an anti-Sam Harris critic. Quite the opposite. Now I wish to make some points:

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it, then we would have to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist (e.g., [8][9]). If you include one without the other, then that would be POV pushing (wp:advocacy).
• Philosophy Now is just a magazine. It is no better than newspaper articles. I am willing to grant you the reference from "The Philosophers' Magazine." So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.
• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies" himself as a philosopher.
• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website [10]. In it, he is described as an author as well as a cofounder and CEO of Project Reason. His website also states he that "a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA." No where does his website calls him a neuroscientist or a philosopher.
• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website, which is the best source for now. Just as the description of Richard Dawkins's professions should come from Oxford University [11]. Thus, I would like to reemphasize my suggestion of splitting the current lede sentence into two as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author and co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. He has a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA and a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Stanford University.

I believe this is most accurate without making judgments about Sam's profession. It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas. If people wish to call him a philosopher because of his writings or his degree, then that is up to them. Not wikipedia. I would like to invite other editors to weigh in on this and hopefully reach a consensus. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielkueh, your arguments and proposed solution for the lead are sensible. But Xenophrenic has also made strong arguments on the other side; i.e. that entities like CNN, NPR, and the BBC refer to Harris as a "philosopher" should carry some weight. What is unfair is your accusation of wikilawyering and assumption of bad faith on the part of Xenophrenic. We have proof of bad faith by some other parties involved in the editing of this article. See the contribution history of 90.202.202.24 and the comment that IP user talk page made by User:Anti-spammm, an apparently new user who surfaced only today. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it...

No, that is not my rationale. My rational for inclusion is that the description is conveyed by numerous "reliable sources as to the assertion of fact". Media pieces (like the commentary piece by a college associate prof. who also refers to other individuals as "loony" - red flag there - or a piece that calls books, not people, "polemics") do not meet Wikipedia's requirements.

• Read what you wrote again. You are simply paraphrasing what I just said. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. You want to use "media" sources that don't convey what you said they did. I, and Wikipedia, insist on using reliable sources, and conveying what they convey. Let me know if there is anything else you need clarified. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not true. You must have overlooked The Nation article that I cited. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. I addressed your citation to the Nation commentary piece by the name-calling college associate prof. above. Let's please stick to sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. (Note: I agree Harris has written some polemics, and at times argued polemically, but unless he self-describes as such, much better sourcing is required.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point I am trying to make is lost in the details here. I am not trying to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist. Rather, I am trying to make the point that if we use the rationale that we must include all descriptions of Sam that can be sourced, then we would have to include every description of Sam Harris, some of which may not necessarily be informative, neutral, or encyclopedic. That is the problem that I foresee. Granted, the example or source I provided (polemicist) of Sam is not the best one as you correctly pointed out, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. Anyway, this is a peripheral issue now. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.

One high quality source after less than 2 minutes of casual looking. As for "notability", that is a requirement for the creation of a Wikipedia article, but has no bearing on evaluating the reliability of a source used within an article.

• By notable, I meant "well-established' or "prominent." danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies"

I haven't checked. I was merely repeating what was asserted a few paragraphs up in this same discussion. If it gets asserted in the article, it most certainly should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source.

• Then let's drop this and move on. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website

Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. His website, however, is not the sole source of information about him, nor is it necessarily "the best". Lack of information in any one source about Harris does not mean that information doesn't exist.Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the best with respect to his credentials as it is an organization that he is directly affiliated with. Furthermore, the site is the closest thing that we have to a CV of his credentials. We can also use UCLA as well. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said above, Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you said that, and I wasn't responding to that point. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to cite the above mentioned sources; I really have no problem with that. We can have hundreds of cited sources. I don't have much interest in what source you feel is best, or prettiest, or whatever. That's subjective, and I'm sure we will disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website...

Yes, you have explained as much. I, on the other hand, feel that the description can certainly draw from his website, but should not "mirror" it when it can be more expansive and informative. Input from other editors would be a good thing.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See my further explanations below on why I think we should keep the lede more focused and neutral. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11 and Xenophrenic, I appreciate both of you taking the time to reply to my comments. I was responding to Xenophrenic's comments about critics of Sam and editors not being RS. While I don't dispute that there are editors who do not like Sam Harris and who may vandalize this page, I think we should be avoid making comments that may cast an aspersion on the other editors in this section who have genuine concerns about the description of Sam Harris as a philosopher. By the way, Xenophrenic, since you believe strongly in WP's policies, you should review WP:AGF very carefully. It is one of the fundamental principles of WP which all editors are expected to follow. As Jweiss correctly pointed out, I too should and will assume good faith on your part.

(pardon the interruption...) I have always avoided casting aspersions on the editors in this section who have genuine concerns. Any misperceptions of aspersions that don't really exist are probably born of a lack of good faith. re: Policies; yes, I do espouse following them. As for guidelines, principles, essays and other informative pages, they have some value as well. No need for me to re-read the AGF guideline (I've even helped craft versions of it); I know it well, and I know that it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In fact, the operative instruction is to not assume malice unless there is specific evidence of malice, and that instruction comes without caveats. I do follow that advice. Unlike the "assume good faith" part, which comes with caveats, limits, exceptions and loopholes -- yet people love to quote and misrepresent. Thanks for the nod to assuming good faith on my part — barn doors & escaped horses, etc. — but we should probably just stick to discussing content and sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. danielkueh (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that news outlets that describe as a philosopher such as the BBC, CNN, etc do exist. I have nothing against the use of media organizations. In fact, I myself rely upon them everyday. What I am saying is that the use of the label by these organizations may not necessarily be the best one, especially for a lede sentence. And the rationale provided is not that great either. Pardon my language, but suppose these new outlets describe Sam as an "asshole." That doesn't that we found a "fact" that he is an asshole does it? Should we include that description in the lede sentence? Should we not remove it until that there is counter argument from another source? Or should we include both? As you can see, I think this sort of argument is problematic and detracts from the main purpose of article, which is to provide information on the attributes of Sam that readers will find informative. Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so. I have read all of his books and writing and I know he does not describe himself as such. In fact, he doesn't like labels, such as atheist, much to the chagrin of other atheists.

Rather than just cite what sources say and sticking them all in the lede, I think we should focus on how best to inform our readers on who Sam Harris is and he is best known for. For example, I think we can use other featured articles such as Emily Dickinson and or Ernest Hemingway, just to name a few, as our guides. The lede descriptions in both articles are short and simple. We can do the same here by improving upon the current description of Sam by keeping the language tight and neutral. Upon further reflection, I would like to take a step back and have us all rethink the lede sentence, which I think is not as informative as it potentially could be. Sam is known primarily by his books on atheism, religion, morality, and free will. I believe we should have a lede that describes him as such. Even if he is described as a philosopher by some, that is a secondary issue. Just as whether he is male, 5 feet plus, married, etc. Thus, I would like to suggest improving the lede sentence as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I apologize for my lengthy response and I hope you will see that I am trying to improve this article by tightening up the language. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to expressing what he is versus what he is "trained in", I'll defer to reliable sources. Adding that he writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality, does not appear on its face to be problematic. It should properly summarize more detailed information in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would agree with me that he is trained in philosophy and neuroscience as he has degrees in both fields, which can be verified by multiple reliable sources. In fact, from the man himself [12][13][14]. People go to universities to receive training, which is verified by the degrees that they receive. Whether they continue to use their training or be identified by their degrees is a different matter. Sometimes a muddy issue I might add. danielkueh (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree with you that he is trained in stuff. But as saying "he's a philosopher trained in philosophy" gets to be a bit redundant for the lede, the specifics of what "training" he went through would likely be best expounded upon in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Just to be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I believe listing his credentials and linking them to what he does will allow readers to discern who he is or what he is about very quickly. If we are to list what he is, which as you know is not my favorite choice, then it would look like this:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. As a philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

danielkueh (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence.

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author, philosopher, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Why, exactly, is your version shorter? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I'm fairly certain I've figured it out.Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is heading. You don't want the first sentence in the lead to directly convey that Harris is a philosopher and neuroscientist. Despite numerous reliable sources ranging from news to high quality academic, you still balk at conveying what reliable sources convey. Perhaps you can better describe your reasoning. So far I'm only catching hints when you say:

• "I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher..."
• "concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns..."
• "It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas..."
• "Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so..."

Incorrect; calling him anything positive is contentious, as the above discussions have shown. He certainly has critics and detractors. However, numerous reliable sources say he is, so Wikipedia says he is. I'll ask for the 4th time: Are there reliable sources that say he is not? Looks like we're I am done here, until those sources are produced and examined. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even review my two proposals, which included a description of Sam as a neuroscientist and a philosopher in one of them. In fact both of them are consistent with the sources. You have not even responded to the long explanation that I provided above. danielkueh (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your latest two proposals. The concern I expressed above stands unaddressed. Perhaps others will take this opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. It does address your concern. One of them explicitly so. It just happens to be in the second sentence. I am hoping other editors can comment. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My second proposal does not exclude describing Sam as a philosopher or neuroscientist. I included those two descriptors in the second sentence of my second proposal. The issue now is whether we can improve upon the lede sentence to make it more informative. Just because something is sourced, does not mean it gets front seating. danielkueh (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more to add, really. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What problem do you have with saying Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist in the first sentence, in the lead, right up front? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different question, which is closer to the issue at hand. I have already answered it. Please see my explanation above (which contains the proposals). If you don't mind, I am going to take a break from this and wait for others to respond. danielkueh (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. If you don't want to give me a brief answer here about this "issue at hand", that's fine. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not cutting off the conversation. It was late and I was a little tired from editing. When I get around to it, I will try to give a brief summary of my previous explanation. Plus, I really would like to hear from other editors as well. By the way, I appreciate the gesture and have followed your lead. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me just clarify that I do agree with you that there are reliable sources that describe Sam Harris as a neuroscientist and a philosopher. Let me also clarify that the main concerns raised above and below by the other editors is that these labels are usually reserved for professionals who are actively engaged in these fields (neuroscience and philosophy). There is obviously a difference in the way these terms are used among professionals in the field and by media outlets. While it is true that calling him a neuroscientist and philosopher would be consistent with the sources, it may potentially confuse our readers. You are not going to find sources that dispute these descriptions of Sam because there is no official body or licensing board that regulates the use of these terms. Much of this is convention. Furthermore, since neuroscience and to some extent, philosophy (e.g., bioethics), are part of the biomedical field, we should rely upon better sources such as scientific or peer-reviewed articles as the popular press is not necessarily the best source (as described in this section of WP:MEDRS) for this kind of information.

Second, Sam is primarily known as an author of multiple books on morality, atheism, etc. In fact, his first book, The End of Faith, was published before he received a PhD in neuroscience. In summary, my proposal identifies Sam Harris as first and foremost an author as well as a CEO of Project Reason. Since he has earned degrees in both philosophy and neuroscience, we could label him as such in the second sentence, which will also allow us to link these descriptions to his work on atheism, morality, etc. This will allow readers to make the connection between his area of expertise and the topics that he tends to write about. Plus, it makes it easier to read. The current lede sentence unnecessarily crams too many adjectives into one sentence.

Finally, I apologize if this is not brief but I am trying to take the time to get you to understand and appreciate the nuanced argument is being made here. danielkueh (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. We agree that reliable sources describe Harris as a philosopher and neuroscientist. Those reliable sources include news agencies as well as scientific and academic sources, and he has been referred to as such by others in those fields. We also agree that no reliably sourced refutations to those descriptions have been produced. He has formal education in these fields, and has conducted activity in these fields. We both agree that some folks have questioned whether Harris' level of activity in these fields warrant the use of these descriptions, but as we both acknowledge, there is no regulating body defining the use of these descriptions -- so those "concerns" don't really bear practical weight on this discussion. As your "tongue-in-cheek" article link humorously, but quite accurately, conveyed: "What is a philosopher?" is still very much an open question. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we have clear cut policy guiding us as to the use of these descriptions in BLPs.

Conclusion: Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist, per reliable sources and in the absence of anything to the contrary. Moving to your second point: We agree that Harris is most widely known as an author. That is why "Author" is listed first and foremost among his several descriptions. We agree. I disagree with you that he is equally well known as the CEO of Project Reason; I would contend that he is much more widely known for his lecturers & debates & intellectual commentaries in his various philosophical and scientific fields of specialization, with his CEO-ship of the relatively obscure Project Reason being less known. As such, I would suggest a lead sentence such as this:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author, philosopher, public intellectual, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.

Short, succint, and lists his significant descriptors in order of notability. And it avoids the obvious pitfalls of unintentionally diminishing those descriptors by using a passive voice, or burying them in subsequent sentences. It also follows the conventions set by other featured articles, like those of Emily Dickinson and Ernest Hemingway, in that it states their descriptions in the first sentence as "XXX is (or was, if deceased) an ABC and a DEF." Much easier to read. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the descriptor, "public intellectual" as well sourced as "neuroscientist" and "philosopher"? If not, I think we should omit it as it does not add anything to the introduction and it is actually quite redundant. If you want everything in one sentence and would like to keep it succinct, then I suggest grouping the labels by categories as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American philosopher and neuroscientist who works as an author and as a CEO of Project Reason.

This suggested lede sentence has the advantage of parsing his training and expertise (philosophy and neuroscience) from his current occupations (author and CEO), which would be informative. Plus, it transitions well to the next sentence. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the motivation for "parsing training and expertise from his current occupations" in that way; philosophy and neuroscience are actually integral to, and the foundation of his "current occupations". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I fail to see how listing descriptors of Sam in subsequent sentences or in different tenses will diminish those descriptors. Not everything has to be squeezed into the first lede sentence. There are no WP rules or logical basis for such a concern. Since Sam has multiple roles, another example would be the article on Steve Jobs. danielkueh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to give a concise description of the subject in the WP:Leadsentence. The present sentence isn't overly long or cumbersome, and accurately conveys the descriptors of the subject. Why relegate selected descriptors to subsequent sentences in the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Sam Harris is a philosopher because he writes poorly on topics covered by philosophers such as metaphysics, and because he considers himself a philosopher, I think we should add philosopher to Deepak Chopra's Wiki entry. It's only consistent.

See Talk:Sam Harris (author)#RfC:Should Sam Harris be called a philosopher? --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! You agree that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher. I assumed that you would. I shall make the changes. 109.156.238.136 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V and Logic. --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source on his specific birthdate, other than "1967"? XXL2oo 10:49 26 July 2009 (GMT+08:00) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't there any more information about his early life? There's practically nothing listed.203.131.210.82 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fascinating question re Harris's birthdate and more. Here's why. I know his uncle and I know the names of his parents as well as their very exotic, relevant professions. Thus, a few days ago I entered that specific parental information in the article. I also entered it on the existing Wiki page of Harris's mother, a prominent woman in her right. However, I have since found this entry missing from the Harris article. Perhaps that's because I did not cite a published source for the facts I inserted (since there is none as far as I know other than my own accurate personal knowledge.) However, there seems to be another reason that personal family specifics about Harris might be removed. This insight comes from an existing reference in this article--a Washington Post piece from 2006 which includes the following:

''"Harris is 39 and looks uncannily like Ben Stiller. He grew up in Los Angeles, in a home he describes as non-religious. (For the record, his mother is Jewish and his father, now deceased, was a Quaker.) Harris asked that all but the most basic biographical details be omitted from this article, even where he lives and where he studies. Nobody has threatened his life, but he thinks you can't be too careful. Plus, a movie deal is in the works that could make him the focus of a documentary about atheism. He would like to minimize his tracks sooner rather than later."''''Italic text

Question: should an objective reference entity such as Wikipedia honor Harris's--or anyone else's--desire to "minimize his tracks" by not including factual material about his parents? I guess that's fair question to discuss here. Agree?

Mwprods (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "In the context of religion, though, such teachings need not — and cannot - be questioned." Even Harris cannot be so ignorant to suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been questioned by Christians! Indeed it is impossible to think of a single Christian doctrine that has not been questioned heavi;y. NBeale (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not just mean that it "cannot" be questioned in certain theologies? Obviously there's nothing in any religion that "cannot" be questioned (if not within the religion, then certainly without). I read the sentence as simply noting that certain "truths" cannot be questioned within certain faith traditions (lest charges of heresy be made and/or pyres of firewood assembled). No more than that. And my understanding of transubstantiation is that it's a fairly mandatory belief in certain segments of Christianity. --PLUMBAGO 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the statement is unrefed it is hard to know whether he really says it or not. But even before the Reformation most of the Catholic doctrines were heavily questioned by Catholic philosophers - debate was a fundamental part of the university system. You were only liable to a charge of heresy if you actively proclaimed a false doctrine rather than questioning an accepted one, and even then you would only be punished if you repeatedly did this after you had been had up the first time. Anyway, unless and until there is clear evidence that he says anything so absurd and ignorant we'd better leave it out. NBeale (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything online that would support the statement, and though I still think you're reading too much into it (i.e. it's "obvious" that all faith statements are open to question; he's just talking about faith hierarchies and dogma), I don't think it's all that important a line, so it doesn't need to be added back. That said, since our interpretations are perpendicular on this point, if he did say something like it, and if someone wanted to add it back in, it needs to be absolutely clear what's meant (i.e. carefully contextualised and/or straight-quoted). It's not helpful to have statements in an article that mean two completely different things to people. --PLUMBAGO 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree (with your last 2 sentences). NBeale (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is no more a neuroscientist than he is a philosopher. This article now says he got his PhD but it isn't sourced. I removed it.

Savagedjeff (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Washington Post article, dated Thursday, October 26, 2006 it says that "he is working on a PhD in neuroscience" [15]. The LA Times article, dated September 30, 2009, says "Harris recently completed a doctoral dissertation in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA." [16]. I've removed the non-reliable IMDB reference and replaced it with the LA Times reference. More importantly, Harris has published two first author papers in peer-reviewed journals which list his affiliation as University of California Los Angeles Brain Mapping Center, Los Angeles, CA [17], and UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America, The Brain Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America [18]. The first article is available only to subscribers, but the second, in PLOS One is open-access, and anyone can go read it here . So, as assessed by verifiable, WP:reliable sources, Harris, the very same Harris that we are talking about here, has completed a PhD in neuroscience, sometime between 2006 and 2009, and has additionally published (to date) two peer-reviewed papers in cognitive neuroscience using fMRI. I have recently added a section detailing this research in a section titled Neuroscientific research. Edhubbard (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, where is the evidence that he was actually awarded a PhD? They seem to just go on what he tells them and using deductive reasoning. You can't even tell me when he got it. And I really don't think his "research" is noteworthy or deserves its own section. Besides the fact that Sam Harris doing research on religion is about as honest as David Duke doing research on Jews. Talk about a competing interest. The guy has a personal and financial stake in portraying religious people in a certain way. This is useless scientific handwaving to try and impress the layman that Harris' bigotries are somehow backed up by science.

Why is he called an author? He's got a PhD in neuroscience, he should be called a neuroscience. Savagedjeff (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, we follow WP:BLP on talk pages too. Your denigration of Harris is unnecessary and unhelpful. Auntie E.

Whereas I disagree with the tone used above by the previous wikipedian, I think there may be a valid concern that by starting the article with the acknowledgment that Harris is a neuroscientist now, there is the perception that all the opinions attributed to him throughout the article were possibly made after he became a neuroscientist and not before, and thus do carry the inaccurate perception that they carry some sort of scientific seal of approval. I'm unsure how to go about editing to make the article more clear. Suggests and comments would be appreciated. I'll wait a little while before making any changes if I don't get an immediate response back. Dantedanti (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors that reverted the addition. If he was anyone else, would he be called a neuroscientist after only two papers? It's a matter of editorial judgment, and IMHO he's not there yet. Auntie E. 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted, you said that merely having his degree is not enough to make someone a neuroscientist. I've added verifiable reliable sources that he got his degree (much better than the previous IMDB reference). In addition, I added references to his published papers, in part because of your complaints that the degree did not make him a neuroscientist. They show that he is doing the same work as any other neuroscientist, he just hasn't been on the job as long (he did just recently complete his PhD). I would say that someone who is currently publishing in neuroscience is a neuroscientist (whether they have two papers or twenty). The question is, will he continue to publish in neuroscience (that is, will he stay a neuroscientist) or will he take his degree and leave academia? (I would guess the latter) In that case, he would cease to be a neuroscientist, in the same way that a waiter ceases to be a waiter if he or she takes a job as an actor or a telemarketer. But, as he is currently doing the same work (albeit more junior) as any other neuroscientist, I find it hard to argue that he is not a neuroscientist. One other question raised above is about the relation of his degree and the timeline of his book. A couple of sources from UCLA (perhaps not quite reliable enough for the main page, but informative for the talk page) suggest that he was "a mere dissertation away" from his degree when TEOF came out [19] [20]. So, he was already pursuing his PhD (a neuroscience student?) when his book brought him fame... and perhaps, that's really where the crux of this lies. He clearly is a neuroscientist (he's doing that work) but that's not why he's notable enough for wikipedia. In *that* case, the thing to do is not to make a decision about whether this should be completely in or completely out, but how much weight we should be giving this. In making the addition about his research, I did add it after all of the other things for which Harris is notable, and accordingly (I thought) gave it appropriate weight. Now, perhaps listing it *first* on par with his work as an author in the lead is incorrect, but eliminating it entirely seems to be going overboard in the opposite direction. Edhubbard (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I see this as a split between "real world" and "wiki world". In the real world, someone who is working in neuroscience would be a neuroscientist. Case closed. But, in wiki world, someone who only has two published papers wouldn't even exist (i.e., would not have a wiki page). So, we have no wiki-neuroscientists with only two publications, except Harris. I've been approaching this from a real world perspective, arguing that since Harris has earned a PhD and (recently) published peer-reviewed studies in neuroscience, he is working as a neuroscientist. But, if this was all he'd done, he wouldn't have a wiki page. So, in wiki world, what makes him notable is not his neuroscience research. But, let's not deny the fact that he is, indeed, a neuroscientist in the real world, even if this wouldn't earn him a page on wikipedia without his other activities. Accordingly, neuroscientist should probably be de-emphasized, but not eliminated from the lead, and the article. Any ideas for what we'd like to do? Edhubbard (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well you all bring up some interesting aspects. Does anyone know if the work that was published by Harris in neuroscience is just his dissertation work or work done aside from his diss? From comments he's made, I very much think it's just his dissertation work and nothing more. However, he does have a degree in neuroscience now. Maybe intro to the article would be better if we mention he has earned his phd in neuroscience but that the work he is known for was written before he received his degree. If we do it this way, we can always update it as things move along if he ends up publishing work as a neuroscientist. I also do hear what you're saying, edhubbard, on calling him a neuroscientist in the introduction, since thats not why hes actually on wiki. Perhaps we could just drop the title from the intro and leave the section discussing his recent degree, though I would like to add to all the sections about what he has written, that he was not a neuroscientist. (edit added to talk page, ie i forgot to sign in): Dantedanti (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we need to go through every section and proclaim that Harris "was not a neuroscientist when he did this", as then we go too far to the other extreme. This is especially the case since according to the refs I pointed to above, he was already enrolled and had completed his coursework requirements ("mere dissertation away") at UCLA when he took time off to write his book. But, I do think that the timeline here needs to be clarified. Harris started his PhD (I can't find any reliable sources for when) then took time off to write TEOF (published 2004). Then, after the book tours and all, went back to UCLA (Fall, 2007) and completed his PhD, sometime before September 2009. The most detailed sources I have are these UCLA newspapers, which might or might not meet other people's standards for reliable sources. As for the papers, I would assume that they are his dissertation work; as a PhD requires independent research, these would probably be the first fruits of that independent research. Whether or not there are more, we'll have to wait and see. Here's a draft of a new lead. Let's see what others think Edhubbard (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American non-fiction writer, and proponent of scientific skepticism. He is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award,^[1] and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to the criticism his first book attracted. Harris was pursuing a PhD in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles when he took time off to write The End of Faith.^[2][3] Harris returned to UCLA in the fall of 2007^[2] and completed his degree in 2009.^[4]

This lead is much better than the present. Whether or not he now qualifies as a neuroscientist (and in some sense he probably does) he is certainly not first and foremost a neuroscientist and it is misleading to suggest that he is. I note that the PLOS1 paper reports research that was part-funded by his earnings from books, which does not of course disqualify it but does strongly suggest that he would not have got this published paper if he had not first been a writer. NBeale (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply NBeale. I think you're right about the relative weight that this new lead gives to Harris' work in neuroscience. Let's give it a day or two for other people to comment, but I'm glad to see that I've got at least one 'yea' vote.

On the subject of the PLoS One paper, two things are important to note. The PLOS One publishing model is, unlike say, Nature or even the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, is an Open Source model, as is wikipedia. Wikipedia depends on the donations of people like me and you to stay afloat. Nature charges readers and libraries to stay afloat. PLOS One charges authors open access charges to publish. So, every paper in PLOS One has had to pay to publish, not just this one. Now, concerning the funding source, and whether there is any conflict of interest, that a study examining the neural substrates of belief in some way was funded by Harris' foundation, Harris' PhD mentor comments on exactly that here [21]. Conversely, should we treat all research on religion funded by the John Templeton Foundation as equally suspect because of Templeton's strong religious beliefs? Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. I'm not casting doubt on SH's research because of the fact that he part-funded it - though I note in passing that almost all published FMRI studies of this type have far too small sample sizes to be really convincing (see eg s3.3 of this v good paper). My point is simply that the funding of this research depended on his being a best-selling author. Therefore, as you rightly suggest, it is more reasonable to decribe him as an author who has recently done a PhD in Neuroscience rather than as a Neuroscientist. In addition the fact that someone has a PhD in (say) Geology does not mean that they are a Geologist: one of my friends has a PhD in Geology from Cambridge but is a Chartered Accountant. Is there a WP:RS that describes Harris as a Neuroscientist? NBeale (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the right track with the above-posted edit. However, I do think the sentence flow is a little "lumpy"; I may pop back in in the next few days to rewrite it (and post it here first), though keeping the content the same as edhubbard's. I will be checking out the info on Harris having funded and what not. I think there are some interesting implications that should be explored (though not necessarily here). Any way we could include the information about open-source and the funding? Dantedanti (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to add: the templeton page outlines criticisms of the foundation and its backing. however, these are published criticisms. their research does seem to be treated as suspect in many circles. im not saying this to suggest we should add comments in this article... at least not until they come up in published sources, if ever. Dantedanti (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some atheist fanatics treat Templeton research as suspect but given the number of Templeton-funded papers published in Science and Nature this says more about the bigotry of these people than it does about the research. However I agree that this is beside the point here. NBeale (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few reasonable atheists find much if not most of the Templeton research to be not just suspect, but a waste of resources. And the number of published papers is not commensurate with quality or value. Sorry you have such a hard on for atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He should be a neuroscientist not an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.173.222 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's at least have a reasonable lead

I've been bold and put the lead EdHubbard suggested in. It's not perfect, but is ridiculous to have an article on Sam Harris (author) which begins by claiming that he is a neuroscientist. He may, or may not, now wish to pursue a career in neuroscience, but he is notable as an author. NBeale (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest for the lead: Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American non-fiction writer, and proponent of scientific skepticism. He is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to the criticism his first book attracted. He completed a PhD in Neuroscience at UCLA in 2009.

The details can then be put in the career section. What do people think?NBeale (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one objects I'll try to do this in a day or so. But I'd really appreciate some other input. NBeale (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Harris's PLOS paper was largely scooped by a much better paper by some really good neuroscientits in PNAS published in March, and curiously un-referenced by Harris. NBeale (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - you people are questioning Harris's status as a neuroscientist? That is utterly ridiculous. Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience, therefore he is a neuroscientist. That's all. Also, the notion that if he leaves academia he will "cease to be a neuroscientist" (and the analogy of the waitress) is wrong. First of all, why you would even think to compare someone with a Doctorate degree to a wage-labor position is beyond me. Second, Doctorate degrees never "go away" - they remain with you for life. Once a neuroscientist, always a neuroscientist, regardless of what work you do. Furthermore, the concept of a "wiki world" where credentials are different from the real world is also ridiculous. Do you have any idea the kind of devotion it takes to get a PhD? Anyone who receives a Doctorate has clearly devoted his life to the subject. I don't care about your "wiki world" standards - Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, and that is equally as important as his being an author. I'm sorry, but some of the comments in this discussion are repulsive. ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadian Genesis (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SineBot, to the letter. Moreover, the comments about him 'not being a neuroscientist' are laced with snide side comments about how he is a bigot, and doesn't speak for science. Frankly, I think this is an NPOV issue. As in, regardless of what the article says about his beliefs, the article as it pertains to him is not NPOV. 71.195.86.253 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of places where this article implicitly or explicitly endorses Harris's positions, even when they are highly controversial and/or downright wrong. I've tried to straighten out a few, but if I do too many without discussion I feel I'm in danger of being mass-reverted. Can we have a consensus that we should state his positions without appearing to endorse them? NBeale (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NBeale, which parts do you feel are endorsing is views? I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to reread the entire article, though I've gotten the same feeling in the past. Dantedanti (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've tried to show this by editing the Worldview section to make it NPOV. I have also put some "fact" tags in because even Harris cannot (surely?) be so stupid and ignorant as to assert some of the things that are claimed here. NBeale (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that another editor (sadly an anon, but thanks) has removed one of the more abusurd claims. NBeale (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this count as a source for said "absurd" claim? Search for "elected". As for the purported absurdity of this statement, it's not relevant for us to discuss that here. --PLUMBAGO 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing absurd about suggesting that atheists have a hard time getting elected in the US. But the views ascribed to Harris in the article that I was concerned about ("considers that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded by many as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture. Harris suggests that a significant proportion of the American population may see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome portent of the End times. Harris further asserts that the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents, senators, and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office") don't appear there. Believe me, if we could find a reliable source for his holding such absurd views I'd be minded to put them in :-) NBeale (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. There appears to be some video footage of him discussing this sort of thing, but I've yet to look at it to check if it helps. All we're looking for is a source for these purported assertions by Harris (preferably in print I guess). I'm not so sure that they can't be found since his assertions, while out-there, don't seem too outlandish. Certainly, as much as one can judge from the television and internet, belief in the Rapture, and its imminent arrival, is non-trivial in the US (which isn't to say "significant"). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are some people in the US who hold such views. What is compleletely absurd is to say that "the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents, senators, and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office" The truth is that much of the Militant Atheist road rage was directed against G.W. Bush and seems absurd against Obama. NBeale (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you have been in a coma and have not noticed that Obamma's religion played a huge role in his election, even who his preacher was brought about a firestorm. We have a sizable percent of the American population that thinks he's not even a christian, they publish crap about his religion all the time. They seek to run him out of office because he is not a "true" christian or worse, he may be a muslim! the chances of an atheist being elected to a high office is about the same as me flapping my wings and flying to Peru from the state of Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im pretty familiar with all harris' work and speeches, as well as a good deal of his conference material that is available, and unfortunately, Nbeale, he often engages in arm-chair philosophy, which can produce some pretty crazy and ignorant sounding beliefs. in relation to your criticism of his elected-officials belief, it doesnt sound like something thats out of the park for harris, in fact it sounds like his typical conclusions. i dont recall totally, but the beliefs you quote to him seem more like a bric-a-brac of things he's said in various venues and not in one place specifically. Dantedanti (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Harris' upcoming release in the intro seems like a marketing blurb, so I'm taking it out. If someone would like to make a "works" section near the bottom to add it to, that would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.75.152 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in the Books section near the bottom. I've put the reference you removed next to the new book's entry there. Tayste (edits) 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tayste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.225.97 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are we to make of this? How does this fit with what we already have on Harris? It certainly complicates the interpretation of Harris, in the same way that we have a complicated interpretation of Albert Einstein, but I think that there is a consistent reading of Harris that denies any accepted, religious meaning of God, while accepting some sort of transcendental experiences as being real, valuable, and enriching. Edhubbard (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does complicate interpretations of Harris and point out one aspect of his thought that is controversial among atheists, as I pointed out in an article that I wrote about the New Atheists, see:

http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant/Papers/129476/The-New-Atheism--and-New-Humanism-

JimFarm (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all like to quote ourselves don't we? says PalindromeKitty. PalindromeKitty (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true sockpuppet. JimFarm (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly legit to refer to your own work, Jim (although it would be another story if you were citing it ON the page lol etc. etc.) Mostly I hope we do not lose track of Ed's point.

Ed, imo - if you were saying that the source you cite was sensationalizing, that Harris does not believe in what most people call "God", and that the current section on spirituality is fine - then I agree :) -Tesseract²(talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This, along with his praise for fascists' positions on European immigration, has undermined his credibility."

I've never heard of sam harris praising fascist positions on european immigration in his lectures or writings. In fact, in "letter to a christian nation" he writes "With a few exceptions, the only public figures who have had the courage to speak honestly about the threat that islam now poses to european society seem to be fascists. this does not bode well for the future of civilization."

It seems that sam is saying that it's a bad thing that only fascists are the ones that are opposing muslim immigration to europe. sam is not in any way suggesting that we take the fascist approach to muslim immigration. he is merely saying that we should be honest with ourselves and start demanding that the islamic communities all across europe respect the european culture they chose to live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.251 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything to support the claim either, nor the claim that it somehow affected his credibility. I removed the sentence and the one before it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth sentence in the first paragraph under Worldview reads, "He has also been derided for selectively criticizing Christianity and Islam and refusing to criticize his former religion Judaism ..."

Yet Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion."

His alleged refusal to criticize Judaism is patently false, and I think this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in to support the allegation that Harris refuses to criticize Judaism. The cited Hitchens article indeed calls Harris a "Jewish warrior," but does not explain why. And the next sentence under Worldview reads, "This, along with his praise for fascists' positions on European immigration, has undermined his credibility." Again, it cites the Hitchens article, which says nothing of the sort in regards to Harris's credibility. I'm removing these two sentences.

Lede says "He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years." Is this supposed to imply he has actually done any structured study (eg an actual qualification in comparative religion at say a university) or research in these or that he has published stuff on this going back 20 years or what exactly? If it is just that he is old enough to have thought about it on and off for 20 years then I guess we should delete it? --BozMo talk 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hedges, an eminent writer and intellectual, has written an entire book critiquing Harris and Hitchens. Why is his analysis missing from the criticism section in which a single article by Meera Nanda, who undoubtedly is also an intellectual, is given prime importance? We should also have a section on alleged misquotes because there are too many of them, ranging from torture to nuclear strikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harris clarified on his blog recently (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-chris-hedges/) that he no longer writes for Truthdig, and has not done so in years. I've edited the relevant section accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapplequip (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris is no more an entrepreneur than he is a non-neuroscientist. The source provided for this information in the article header is from Harris' website, but nowhere does this source call him an entrepreneur. Its true he is the CEO of Project Reason, but PR is a non-profit organization, not a business. I suggest we should remove the claim that he is an "entrepreneur".--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the silence as agreement on this and made the change. Qui tacet consentire videtur. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no addressing of the "800 pound gorilla in the room"? I refer to: communism. It should be patently obvious that much of what Harris espouses about religion can be found in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and is what Vladimir Lenin practised in the early days of Soviet Communism. How did it go, "religion is the opiate of the people", or something? Just sayin'...
--Atikokan (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, The Communist Manifesto is not critical of religion and certainly doesn't espouse much similar to what Harris does. At the same time, Harris has responded to this point, saying that communism is a problem because it's too much like a religion. Of course, that's pretty much a terrible argument, but it may stood to be added if anybody wants to. I don't really see how it's necessarily relevant to Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iank125 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Sam Harris and Islam is very much out-of-date, and needs help. I devour each Harris book upon release, and his statements on Islam have changed radically. "The End of Faith," his first book, was written in the wake of 9/11, and reflects that fact. As an atheist with many Muslim friends, I had a negative reaction to it, but he changes with each new book, and, in my view, just gets better and better. This article's section on Harris and Islam should be changed, to reflect this.

However, I can't do this myself, or I already would have. I'm a huge fan of Harris, and am in the very unusual position of being an atheist who finds much to admire in Islam, and is very defensive of my numerous Muslim friends around the world, who demonstrate, with their lives, that the popular stereotype of Muslims is the unfortunate result of the actions of a small number of extremists, and doesn't reflect the reality of how millions of Muslims actually are.

Anything I modified in the article would, clearly, not be objective at all -- these things are far too personal for me to do the necessary work myself. However, it needs to be done, and I hope someone else has both the knowledge, and the necessary objectivity I clearly lack, to be able to improve this article in this regard.

It would also be nice if Sam Harris's full date of birth were given -- I came here today to find that one bit of information, but only found the year, 1967. If I can find the full date, I CAN take care of that much, myself.

Thanks, fellow Wikipedians. RobertAustin (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More thorough review of this article, and especially this talk page, has left me profoundly disturbed. Since Sam Harris is my favorite living author, I have refrained from editing the article myself, because I realize I lack the necessary objectivity to do so. Anyone with the same problem should not edit this article, and the same goes for those who hate Sam Harris. Non-objective input is only appropriate on a talk page, NOT an article which is supposed to be encyclopedic in tone. I am proud of Wikipedia as a whole, and glad to have played a small role in creating and editing parts of it, but this article, as it stands, is shameful. It isn't "B-class" right now, as it is labeled -- it deserves a flat "F," in its present form. The article is presently a mixture of propaganda from two opposing sides, and that is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It probably should be re-written from scratch, rather than edited, for there is very little in the article right now that is useful -- and I have never written, nor even thought, such a thing, about any article on Wikipedia, before today.

On to the talk page: what's with all the personal attacks here, against Harris, his critics, and your fellow Wikipedians? Civility, please! Also, please sign your posts. Typing four tildes isn't difficult. I'll demonstrate, with my real name. RobertAustin (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience, Harris suggests, it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being.

I haven't had a chance to review the sources on this, but this popular interpretation (probably written by an editor rather than attributed to Harris) is wrong. Aside from extreme ascetic practices (including drug tantra) the sense of self does not usually vanish as is popularly believed, but rather one notices that the self is not separate from anything outside the mind and body. So the self doesn't vanish, it's our perception of the separate self that disappears. This experience ("a new state of personal well-being") is similar to viewing and becoming aware of cognitive illusions and understanding patterns and perceptional organizations. Our thoughts are no different. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris's qualifications should mention his work in neuroscience, however to blatantly state that he is a neuroscientist in the introduction is inaccurate. This implies that he is an active researcher in the field of neuroscience, an academic at a university or research institute. This is not true.

For example, if someone has completed the Bachelor's of Science degree, would you call him a scientist? Only in a vague sense, because you know that until he/she actively becomes part of the research/scientific community, they are not really a scientist per say. Being a scientist is an active role, not a passive role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also from reading above, it appears that this issue has been raised before. And it also appears that proponents and supporters of Mr. Harris want him to be called a neuroscientist, and his opponents do not. I implore you to keep personal judgment out of this place. And I repeat, it is not nearly enough to have completed a degree in a field to be associated with that field. You can state his qualifications, but he cannot be grouped together with other neuroscientists who are active/well known in their research. Why else would you mention someone on wiki, if he/she was not notable in the field of neuroscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and ideological opponents of Harris (and a considerable number of Wikipedian's) have tried to qualify, diminish or outright reject these descriptions of Harris. I'm going to assemble some of the reliably sourced descriptions in one place here.

• CNN -- "the philosopher Sam Harris..."
• Herald -- "In a fascinating new book, the well-known secular philosopher Sam Harris makes the case for accepting that these impulses..."
• Telegraph -- "the American neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith"
• NPR -- "while philosopher Sam Harris explores how science should shape human values."
• BBC -- "guests include the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion..."
• Los Angeles Times -- "bestselling philosopher-turned-neuroscientist ..."
• Why We Need to Believe in Free Will. By: HORGAN, JOHN, Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 6/17/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 39. -- "Sam Harris--the neuroscientist, philosopher, and renowned religion-basher..."
• The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview. By: ASMA, STEPHEN T., Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 1/28/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 21. -- "With tongues in cheeks, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are embracing their reputation as the "Four Horsemen." Lampooning the anxieties of evangelicals, these best-selling atheists are embracing their "dangerous" status and daring believers to match their formidable philosophical acumen."
• The Oxford Handbook of Atheism -- "American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris..."
• Philosophy Now -- "Dawkins' chapter on these two tyrants ends by quoting the philosopher Sam Harris in glowing terms"
• The Philosophers' Magazine
• Keynote Speakers -- "His degree in philosophy from Stanford University and Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California give Harris a unique perspective as both a philosopher and a scientist. As the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, an organization aimed at disseminating secular values and scientific information, Harris is well-versed and possessive of expertise in both science and religion. Harris has authored numerous New York Times bestsellers..."
• SamHarris.org
• Project Reason
• Google Plus

Xenophrenic (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to maintain the sense of discussion. Is there consensus for a) deletion of comments or b) archiving of threads? I only reverted in order to ask. --Lexein (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard an objection to autoarchiving; eventually a talk page gets long enough to activate it. In this case I'd say we're at that point, though I recommend keeping a moderate active thread count, only because it's not an extremely active talk page...say 7 active threads? Sædon^talk 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein, I appreciate you taking the time to ask. But my struck-through comments were unhelpful as well as unnecessary to the flow of the current thread. According to WP Talkpage guidelines, my comments are considered unacceptable. It is common practice to delete or revise such comments on talk pages. So I'm deleting them again. Other than that, I think archiving makes good sense. danielkueh (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assessing your comments! --Lexein (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's listed as his mother at the IMDB -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0365358/bio -- and in an old profile of Susan Harris. Given that Susan Harris was famed for clashing with Christian fundamentalists over edgy TV content, this seems like highly relevant information that should be in Wikipedia. I know Harris says in the Washington Post profile that he doesn't want his origins examined, but it seems like really obvious missing information. And I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to hide this information, even though it probably works against Harris's brand image to be outed as a Hollywood rich kid. 50.143.146.234 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb is not considered a reliable source because its content is largely user-generated. Wikipedia does not hide information. Rather it aims only to represent information published by other reliable sources; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Has this information about Harris's mother been published anywhere beside the IMDb? If not, I'm afraid it won't last here. Even if it is true, it needs to be substantiated. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11 is correct about IMDB not being a reliable source for the assertion of fact in Biographies of Living Persons. I've removed that assertion pending the location of reliable sourcing. Please note that WP:BLP policy also covers Talk pages on Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here is an extended quote from an Amazon review of his book The End of Faith that documents this (wikipedia doesn't let me link to Amazon but you can find original on google) :

Attentive readers may pick up on hints along the way, such as his early, offhand mention of "a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science" (?), and a footnote that cites "some credible evidence for reincarnation" (?!?), but Harris saves his all-out evangelistic pitch for the very end, which may explain why so many of these five star reviews don't indicate any awareness of it whatsoever. On top of this stealth tactic, Harris defends his Buddhist views by resorting to arguments from ignorance: "But the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death. . . . Consciousness may be a far more rudimentary phenomenon than are living creatures and their brains. And there appears to be no obvious way of ruling out such a thesis experimentally." This is absolutely despicable; it's the very lowest sort of apologetics, always retreating to the as-yet-unknown and possibly unknowable, and hiding behind the ever-shrinking margin where science and human understanding haven't yet come to satisfying answers.

Harris also engages in some shameless special pleading for Buddhism, trying to exempt it from arguments that he uses earlier to savage the biblical religions. He insists on an ordinary, layperson's sense of "faith" when it comes to the latter, and condescendingly sets aside Paul Tillich's attempts to explore a more sophisticated approach to Christian faith: "But this is not the 'faith' that has animated the faithful for millenia." Fair enough, and I would certainly agree that such rarefied theologies are nothing more than refinements of error. But then Harris turns around (in a footnote) and says: "While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense. There are millions of Buddhists who do not seem to know this, and they can be found in temples throughout Southeast Asia, and even the West, praying to Buddha as though he were a numinous incarnation of Santa Claus. This distortion of the tradition notwithstanding . . ." If you're going to insist that the crudest, most stupid forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the definitive versions of those faiths, then you can't reasonably turn around and insist that the most exalted version of Buddhism is the only true one and all others are distortions.

So he is not an atheist who hates faith - he is a Buddhist who hates Abrahamic monotheistic religions. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia lets you link to Amazon, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Faith-Religion-Terror/dp/0393035158! Apparently, that is only the beginning of what you don't understand about Wikipedia and the subject at hand. That Harris may be guilty from time to time of subtle self-contradictions (a virtual inevitably in any complex analysis performed by a mortal human) does not make him a Buddhist. That said, an Amazon book review is not considered a reliable source, so this discussion has little to add to Wikipedia if it is not outright inappropriate for inclusion even on a talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know what he thinks about meditation and Buddhism, just go to his blog and read "Kill the Buddha." While Harris practices non-religious meditation, Harris is NOT a Buddhist and explicitly rejects any of the religious notions surrounding the practice of meditation.

Shouldn't the above quote be removed form this talk page as a copyright violation?

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "review" on Amazon arguing that somehow deep-down Harris is in fact a very religious person. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Glenn Greenwald's criticism of Harris is mentioned here, perhaps we should add something about the way he and Murtaza Hussain have misrepresented many of Harris's published positions and have committed libel. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, Jweiss11. Here is some info on the misrepresentation: [22] [23]. Lucien504 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Greenwald thing doesn't belong here to begin with. Who is Greenwald anyway and why would he matter? This article is about Harris, not about his critics, their motives and their methods. Let's get rid of it. - DVdm (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a strong reason to keep it either, primarily because it only conveys one-half of the argument. There's no mention of any rebuttal or explanation, and this probably isn't the proper place for what appears to be an extensive back & forth. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think the Greenwald entry belongs here. As DVdm said, "This article is about Harris, not about his critics". If Wikipedia articles included all the criticism and rebuttals etc. for every public figure, it would be a complete mess. I personally think the "Criticism" section here is quite convoluted and question its inclusion in this article in its current state. E.g. the Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, and Reza Aslan pages are without such sections. Lucien504 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now see this RfC, but I find it somewhat dubious that obvious points weren't pushed; in particular, with regard to whether secondary sources describe him as either of the categories he is allotted on Wikipedia in the capacity of a "professional". The comment

It's standard across biographies to label what a subject is notable for without qualifying who is doing the labelling (aside from a source).

seems to fly in the face of WP:RS; that is to say, how can a subject be notable if there are no RS attesting to the fact? I will do a little research before launching a new RfC, as appropriate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: Two different issues:

1. Are there sources calling Harris a philosopher? Yes, see above RFC.
2. Do we explicitly name these sources in the lead instead of just citing them? No. We don't have XYX, is called a YYY by the NY Times...

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see those sources, all mass media sources, not one academic source describes him as a philospher, because he isn't, and a BA degree doesn't change that, no matter what a bunch of Wikipedia editors vote. I see that the PhD gets him a couple of mentions in books as a neuroscientist, but that seems to be as far as it goes.

Categories like "philosopher" should not be assignable on the basis of mass media sources, no matter what a bunch of Wikipedia editors vote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few clarifications, Ubikwit: The Philosopher's Magazine published by Philosophy Documentation Center isn't exactly detached from academia; Philosophy Now is edited by a herd of philosophy PhDs and professors. Harris' works are starting to appear in the academic PhilPapers philosophy database (you can search for him here). The two Chronicle of Higher Education sources listed above are definitely academic sources. I can't tell if he's in this directory yet, but that's mostly for academic philosophers anyway. I recall him self-identifying as such near the end of a recent, long YouTube discussion/debate on The Young Turks. Several of those "mass media" sources are also top-tier news organizations (NPR, BBC, CNN...), and the RfC wasn't decided by "what a bunch of Wikipedia editors voted" — RfCs aren't decided by "votes" — it was decided based on the arguments presented for and against the description. (See This partial list of sources.) Categories are assigned based on reliably sourced descriptions. Now my question for you: Now that you've seen how reliable sources describe Harris, where are your sources to back up your assertion: "because he isn't"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has published one book appearing to advocate a form of determinism against free will, making use of neuroscience, apparently. I haven't read the 96-page book, but on first impression from the briefs reviews I've looked at, it seems to be a type of quaint popularization of discussions in academia about "intentionality", etc.

He might be on the road to publishing something considered to be an original contribution to the field of philosophy, but there isn't enough to justify such a categorization, in my opinion. Here's a CNN piece that calls him a philosopher, too, as such<

Religion causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance, said Harris, a well-known secularist, philosopher and neuroscientist who is the author of the books "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."[30]

. He appears to be notable due to his high-profile attacks religion, as the new section below demonstrates. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know about the books he has published; haven't read them. The above descriptions of him as a philosopher are from reliable sources. (Your CNN source was already listed twice, above.) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the material posted below, including the Chomsky quote, indicates that relatively few people consider Harris to be a philosopher.

None of his books are published by peer-reviewed academic publishers, probably because nothing he writes is considered to advance the relevant fields of study (academic discipline). I don't intend to examine this any further, but here is a link to google search of books with "philosopher Sam Harris".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 2/3 of this article is a detailed expose of the man's views as distilled from his books. This is an encyclopedic article, not a hagiography/plot summary: we should summarize what his views are but we should do so based on secondary sources. It is not our position (esp. if we're going to characterize him as a full-blown philosopher) to distill his views from his works, which may require significant interpretation (meaning Original Research). Because all these views of his seem to be put in here without any editorial oversight (for instance, is it referenced with secondary sources?), this simply reads like a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These citations and information were added to determine a high quality match between his views about various subjects and how others have viewed his material. What we can do without missing important information, and what are you going to propose? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. "Missing important information"--, well it depends on what "important information" is, and as far as I'm concerned it's secondary, not primary sources that determine what's important enough to include. It is the same in this case: if it's not secondary sources that determine what goes into an article, you end up with...well, fill in the blank. (This one has even more information--important information, I suppose.) Drmies (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to be more clearer about the removal of Religion and women, Morality and ethics, Moderation. Some of information seemed important, for describing his views and writings about these matters. How about we just make one section called views and add 2-3 liners about every subject? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to go through the newspaper archive and the journal reviews and pick up on what they noticed--no? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is more important is how secondary sources interpret his views, not our own interpretation of his words. Second Quantization (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly an issue that this section: Sam_Harris_(author)#Views lacks secondary sources, Second Quantization (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A one-sentence summary of extensive condemnation in three sources has been revert-warred out without discussion or explantion, and it is readily evident that the sources support the sentence, as shown by the following excerpts from two of them.
The author of the following Salon article, Nathan Lean, is the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media and the author of three books, including the award-winning "The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims."

The New Atheists, they are called, offer a departure from the theologically based arguments of the past, which claimed that science wasn’t all that important in disproving the existence of God. Instead, Dawkins and other public intellectuals like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens suffocate their opponents with scientific hypotheses, statistics and data about the physical universe — their weapons of choice in a battle to settle the scores in a debate that has raged since the days of Aristotle. They’re atheists with attitudes, as polemical as they are passionate, brash as they are brainy…The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason. “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death,” writes Harris, whose nonprofit foundation Project Reason ironically aims to “erode the influence of bigotry in our world.”
For Harris, the ankle-biter version of the Rottweiler Dawkins, suicide bombers and terrorists are not aberrations. They are the norm. They have not distorted their faith by interpreting it wrongly. They have lived out their faith by understanding it rightly. “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge,” he writes in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
That may sound like the psychobabble of Pamela Geller. But Harris’s crude departure from scholarly decorum is at least peppered with references to the Quran, a book he cites time and again, before suggesting it be “flushed down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.”
How the New Atheists’ anti-Muslim hate advances their belief that God does not exist is not exactly clear. In this climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a convenient digression, though. They’ve shifted their base and instead of simply trying to convince people that God is a myth, they’ve embraced the monster narrative of the day. That’s not rational or enlightening or “free thinking” or even intelligent. That’s opportunism. [31]

Contrary to the assumptions under which some Harris defenders are laboring, the fact that someone is a scientist, an intellectual, and a convincing and valuable exponent of atheism by no means precludes irrational bigotry as a driving force in their worldview. In this case, Harris' own words, as demonstrated below, are his indictment.
…Harris defenders such as the neoconservative David Frumwant to pretend that criticisms of Harris consist of nothing more than the claim that…"it's OK to be an atheist, so long as you omit Islam from your list of the religions to which you object." That's a wildly dishonest summary of the criticisms of Harris
Harris… has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."
Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics": because his atheism invariably serves - explicitly so - as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That's why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying "sensible" things about Islam is significant: not because it means he's a European fascist, but because it's unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, albeit with a more intellectualized expression.[32]

Meanwhile, "racism" is not the issue directly addressed, as far as I can tell, but Islamophobia, so 've deleted "racism". The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis.

Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.[33]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ubikwit, if you'll check the edit summaries, you'll find the explanation for the revert of your problematic text. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:

(looked for a "summary" and didn't find it here; only context-less accusations, one side of the story)

Since you've reintroduced your half-summary, one side of the story, and requested that I "Take it to Talk", I'll do just that ... here it is:

His writings on atheism have been criticized by various commentators, with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia. (Cited to Guardian opinion piece by Greenwald, Salon opinion piece by Nathan Lean, Al Jazeera opinion piece by Murtaza Hussain)

You do realize, I hope, that content in the WP:LEAD must summarize what is in the body of the article, right? You must also adhere to WP:BLP, for which you are showing a considerable lack of concern. Harris has responded extensively to these three jokers, some of which is in the body of the article - but it seems that half of your "summary" got lost somewhere. The explanation of the criticisms also got lost. (And no, Hussain never accuses Harris of Islamophobia...etc.) We don't do half-descriptions like that, Ubikwit, you should know that by know. Per WP:BRD and your request, I've taken your bold addition to the lede to the Talk page. Let's figure out what it is you are trying to do first. Then we'll do it right. And then we'll carry it over to the lead. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(As a side note, regarding the mess you inserted in the body of the article, what exactly are "criticisms of the Harris"? Why is there underlined text in a Wikipedia article? I'm too tired at the moment to decipher what it is you are trying to do there, but I'll get around to it.) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

I expanded the text with relevant material, and more could be added, as shown by the quotes posted above. I don't see how you can challenge the "Islamophobia" allegation; in fact, there is material on the page of Harris responding to the allegations, as you say, the allegations by "these jokers" as you call them, have been whitetwashed out. It seems that the article has Harris responding to claims that the article doesn't set forth--so I fixed that, somewhat. In fact, the very next sentence after the quote from Lean quoting Chomsky starts, "Harris wrote a response to this controversy". Greenwald's statements are only quoted with respect to the Hussain's, apparently, when Greenwald addresses Islamophobia in much more direct terms. And Greenwald expliicitly states

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.

Is there anything violating BLP in that?

The underlined text is the title of a book (not standard formatting?) that was published by one of those "jokers", working on second post-grad degree (and journalist)[34], an received this award.

You claim that Hussain doesn't allege Islamophobia, and you may be right; the text is somewhat convoluted insofar as he defends the freedom of religion of atheists and their right to critique Islam, and appears not to want such critique to be mislabled.

On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like

What Harris and those like him represent is the time-honoured tradition of weaponised racism in the guise of disinterested scientific observation.
what is being pursued today by individuals such as Harris and others under the guise of disinterested observation is something far more insidious. By resurrecting the worst excesses of scientific racism and its violent corollaries, Harris is heir to one of the most disreputable intellectual lineages in modern history.
While those individuals who have provided the intellectual ammunition for the excesses of the present era will inevitably find themselves as dishonoured as their racist predecessors, in the present they should nonetheless be recognised as the dangerous ideologues which they are.
Just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalise their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview.

.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the coverage under the Criticisms section of the New Atheism article[35], to which I've just added a brief statement of the Lean material from the Salon news piece.
  

Sources

1. Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash

   Hussain reserved particular ire for Sam Harris, a neuroscientist by trade whose atheist tracts “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” have made him one of the leading anti-religious polemicists of his age.

2. Unholy war: Atheists and the politics of Muslim-baiting
3. Modernization, Identity and Integration: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Islam in Europe
4. The New Atheism and Islam

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can challenge the "Islamophobia" allegation

It's not our job to challenge or defend allegations. As an outspoken atheist, it goes without saying that he will garner many critics, especially among the world's "believers". What are those criticisms, and are they, according to reliable sources, significant enough to appear in this BLP? Yet instead of convey that as required by policy, you place this uninformative, vague wording in the lead, "His writings on atheism have been criticized by various commentators...". Not only does that not summarize whatever criticism may exist, but it conveys zero information to the reader. It also appears to be simply a flimsy vehicle used to insert the rest of your wording, "with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia", which according to the body of our article are just polemics and attacks from a small handful of islamophobia writers. (That description is echoed in the article from the Independent you just cited, too.)

Is there anything violating BLP in that?

Putting anything in the lead that isn't supported by multiple high-quality sources (not opinion screeds), or isn't first properly detailed in the body of the article, or isn't of sufficient significance in reliable sources to take up real estate in the article, or any combination thereof. Book titles are not underlined in Wikipedia articles (see MoS). Also, block quotes should be used sparingly in articles, and not as part of lengthy "he said"-"she said" transcripts.

do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back ...

Oh sure; we can also add that he ties tin cans to the tails of cats, and makes sculptures out of his own feces, just because someone claimed it in an article they wrote. I can't believe you asked that. Where are the multiple high-quality sources required by WP:BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ubikwit and Xenophrenic, I agree with everything ubikwit has said about the appropriateness of the changes he made to this page, and his criticism of Xenophrenic's objections. There is a section of this article about criticism, so the information is not out of place in the summary. Furthermore, I first heard of Harris because of the significant amount of dialogue online about these criticisms of his work, and did my best to cite examples of that dialogue. I think that if this is such a prominent feature of the discourse about this figure, it should be reflected in the summary of this article. -jonotrain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonotrain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to agree or disagree with Ubikwit. As for me, I agree with Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. I guess that means you and I will have to agree to disagree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Even opinion pieces can be used in BLPs, as evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent.

He added: “Citing “Muslims” as a solid monolith of violent evil - whilst neglecting to include the countless Muslims who have lost their lives peacefully protesting the occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland - Harris engages in a nuanced version of the same racism which his predecessors in scientific racism practiced in their discussion of the blanket characteristics of “Negroes”.”[36]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am wrong about what? I never said opinion pieces can't be used in BLPs. Did you read what I did say? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If what you mean is that my re-wording of the sentence was inadequate, vis-a-vis atheism, then suggest an alternative. Note the following satements from the article in the Indepenndent

...and Sam Harris are on the receiving end of stinging criticism from fellow liberal non-believers who say their particular brand of atheism has swung from being a scientifically rigorous attack on all religions to a populist and crude hatred of Islam.
In the last fortnight a series of columns have been written denouncing the so-called New Atheist movement for, in one writer’s words, lending a “veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry.”

It's rather unbalanced to to include a discussion of the criticism of Harris's critique of Islam without first discussing exactly what his critique of Islam is. Right now the article has a mentioned of "Islamaphobia" in the lead and three more mentions in the body, yet there is no discussion of Harris's specific commentary on Islam. This is a problem of undue weight, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how WEIGHT works. There is almost no coverage of Harris' critique of Islam that I've seen, except for negative (see above and below).

If you want to add a section on Harris's critique of Islam, feel free to make a BOLD edit, but take note, both Lean and Greenwald have directly quoted a rather offensive comment Harris made in his book "The End of Faith", which means that further criticism would probably be added in response to whatever specific points of Harris' critique are proffered.

As it stands, there appears to be a large volume of such criticism, and the text in the article represents an attempt to reflect the main points in a DUE amount, but since new sources have been introduced, they probably should be integrated in a bit of a rewrite.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a proposal for how the criticism should be properly summarized in the lead? I've removed the "Critic XXX calls Harris a [insert name calling here]" one-sided blurb, as it is not a proper summary of the issue. I've been waiting for your suggestions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that wants the text modified, not me. You come up with the proposal.

Don't remove the Criticism section or alter the Chomsky quote in a manner such as to change and degrade its meaning. There was nothing in the Islam section other than criticism, which is misleading. I suggest you do some ground work and build a section documenting Harris' statements on Islam before titling a section "On Islam". And what was your assertion about a "copyvio" about?

Your claims about BLP violations don't seem adequate or accurate, so I suggest you take them to the BLP notice board and be specific, addressing one at a time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that wants the text modified...

Incorrect. You've been placing text in the lede which does not properly summarize the subject matter. (So has a new account with just a handful of edits - is that you, too?) So I have been removing it. If you would like my help in developing a balanced, NPOV summary addition for the lede, I've got no problem with that. If you'll recall, I've already asked you what information you want to convey to the reader. For the lead, specifically, what information from the body of the article do you wish to summarize? I'm fairly certain there is more to the subject than "critics have accused Harris of yada yada." What prompted the criticism, and what was his response? You left out that part of the summary, so I removed what you added.

Don't remove the Criticism section...

Too late. It's gone. I didn't remove the criticism, just the section header, per WP:CSECTION. All the criticism is still there, but now located with the stuff being criticized, as it should be.

I suggest you do some ground work and build a section documenting Harris' statements on Islam...

I was doing just that when you decided to do a blanket revert, which also wiped out spelling corrections, punctuation corrections, formatting, etc. I think we've been editing articles in common enough that you should know by now that disruptive reverts like that are ineffective against me. Please try to work more collaboratively.

...or alter the Chomsky quote in a manner such as to change and degrade its meaning

About that "Chomsky quote", only 2 words are from Chomsky, and the rest appears to be made up by Nathan Lean. Is that quote supposed to be from that YouTube clip you provided? If so, he never mentioned Dawkins. And "beliefs about secularism" is a nonsensical oxymoron; better to repeat what Chomsky actually said about secularism.

Your claims about BLP violations don't seem adequate or accurate, so I suggest you take them to the BLP notice board and be specific...

I decline, thanks. If we're going to handle this through noticeboards, I may as well raise my BLP and other editing concerns at AE, since that is where this will likely end up. It would be much better, however, to try to work together on article improvement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More quotes, from a second secondary source on the pieces by Lean, Hussain, and Greenwald

Polemical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who were dubbed the ‘The Unholy Trinity’, have openly criticised religion in their books – such as The God Delusion (Dawkins), God is not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris). But in an earlier time, much of their atheist exertions were focused on the excesses of Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Judaism.
More generally, Harris wrote that Islam, “more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”
And while there were “other ideologies with which to expunge the last vapors of reasonableness from a society's discourse,” Islam, he added, “is undoubtedly one of the best we've got.”
Writing in Salon, Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, reasons that...
The New Atheists, he writes, became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”
similar critique of the atheists’ excessive preoccupation with painting Islam as evil is offered up by Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto-based scholar of Mideast Politics. Writing in the Al Jazeera website, Hussain likens leading figures in the New Atheist movement – like Harris – to those from an earlier era who justified racism on pseudo-scientific grounds.
Where once science was trotted out to justify slavery, today it is being used to push forward the belief that Muslims as a people lack basic humanity and to justify the “wars of aggression, torture and extra-judicial killings”, he adds.
Hussain’s column has an epilogue. After Guardian’s columnist Glenn Greenwald tweeted out a link to Hussain’s column, Harris e-mailed him (here) to object to his retweeting “defamatory garbage” and to claim that there was in fact “nothing defamatory” about his criticism of Islam and that he criticised “white, western converts in precisely the same terms.”
Greenwald responded to Harris to say that he was probably “embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of atheism advocacy.” In his estimation, he added, “a bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerading in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long.”[37]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. You've found an article, and extracted some partial quotes from it. And? Are you proposing an article improvement based on this source, and if so, what is your specific proposal? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

second arbitrary break

@Xenophrenic: I've made some adjustments to address concerns about neutrality, but you're going to have to do some work, too, if you want to make major changes that reflect the content of reliably sourced statements. BLP concerns will have to be brought to BLP/N, because I don't see the violations and you have not specifically identified any.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your adjustments to neutrality? Can you describe them here on the Talk page, please? As for BLP violations, I have no questions that need to be answered at the noticeboard. The policy is clear: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported," which you failed to do. And "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." C'mon, Ubikwit, you've been around a while and know this stuff — unless you are some hacker who has stolen Ubikwit's account. Propose your additions of contentious content; let's agree that they are compliant; then we'll add them to the article. Wikipedia editing 101. Or you can keep revert-warring your disputed additions into the article, and we'll see where that gets you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the statement in the lead so as to narrow its scope and be more concise. I removed the allegation of racism (Hussain) in favor of focusing on Greenwalds more narrow focus, as per the blockquote.

I moved the Chomsky quote so that Harris' denial of the allegations of Islamophobia could immediately follow the allegations as presented by Greenwald.

There are now two secondary sources recanting the claims made in the three opinion pieces, there is no BLP vio in using those sources for valid, widely-reported criticism, and the material is compliant with all of Wikipedia's policies. If you don't think so, it should be raised at BLP/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary break

Ubikwit, per your response to me above, I'm quite sure I understand how "WEIGHT" works. You claim that "there is almost no coverage of Harris'critique of Islam that I've seen, except for negative." That appears to be to a function more of what you've been looking for rather than a comprehensive assessment of what's out there. Here's a a piece by Lawrence Krauss, published in just the last 24 hours, that references the distortion of Harris's positions on Islam: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-m-krauss/unc-isnt-charlie-hebdo-an_b_6681990.html. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic,

I would like to weigh in on this controversy: I am not Ubikwit. I have few edits, it is true. we all have to start somewhere. It may shock you to learn this, but there's more than one person who disagrees with you in the world. I think you're correct that we should incorporate the criticism section into other sections of this article, and to incorporate accusations of islamophobia into a section of writings on islam or on "new atheism". When that is done, there is no reason that mention of this criticism should be excluded from the summary. It is not one-sided, as you claim. it mentions Harris' writings and their subject matter, then summarizes the critical discourse they've provoked. Of course, as Jweiss11 points out, commentators are not unanimous on this, but my point is that there is substantial and extensive discourse about this point (his new atheism as a front for Islamophobia) and that should be reflected in the article.

Just as an example: imagine if the article on the OJ Simpson trial didnt mention that there was some controversy surrounding the verdict. here's the relevant sentence from the summary of that article: "By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences in the assessment of Simpson's guilt between most black and white Americans.[11]" This is admirable; the reader now knows that there was disagreement, and understands that race played a major role in that. this is what we should be trying to replicate.

Ubikwit is correct that we have responded to all your specific complaints. There is no BLP violation here - the BLP says that criticisms like these should be accompanied by sources, and we have included a number of sources.

Jonotrain (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain[reply]

@Xenophrenic: The HP piece you linked to is not relevant to any of the statements being addressed. I noticed some other HP pieces, such as this[38].

I've left the one paragraph of material that you added in the major restructuring of the article along, and simply moved the Chomsky quote to a subsection on his political views. I'm even going to add a statement from his Blog, though it is a primary source (I now see that it was originally published on Truthdig), because the HP piece I linked to mentions it.

You're not going to whitewash the article of criticism, and there are more than enough RS for the quote removed from the lead to be replaced.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonotrain: The mondoweiss piece has an interesting quote and link to an interview, and maybe the matieral would be better in the "Political" subsection, as tribalism is also addressed there-including a quote from Harris.

Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics. And from there I will begin my examination of his thought and work my way back to the question of religion for which he is better known. Harris gave a revealing interview recently to Tablet that best sums up the key themes of his political writing on the Middle East, Israel and the Western relation to Muslims

@Jonotrain:I see that he has published other pieces on Harris, too [39], and that Harris calls him a troll and basically doesn't respondhere. With the linked to interview here [40]. I'm somewhat skeptical that Sayeed would be deemed to pass RS scrutiny solely on the basis of MW contributions, but his articles may be good sources leading to other sources that may be RS.-Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:02, 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit:- its ok with me if you want to take out the sayeed quote - itll be a little while before i have the time to do more edits - consider this though - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." - we are talking about the controversy surrounding Harris' work here, and Sayeed's article appears to have citations, etc.Jonotrain (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain[reply]

@Jonotrain:I agree, and Mondoweiss is a reliable source for opinion, so I don't intend to take it out. I couldn't find any other journalistic work by him though. If someone challenges it, it might be possible to use sources he cites.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of edits to this page without knowing a discussion like this was going on, so I mostly reverted back to the way it was before I put my hands on it so that this discussion can continue. You can see my version here. I think that the current version gives WP:UNDUE weight to Greenwald, who takes up three paragraphs. I also merged the Politics section with On Islam as most of it has to do with criticism of his comments on Islam. Chomsky, Greenwald, and Hussain all make similar comments so I flattened that as well. The one part of my edits that remains is support for Harris' comments on Islam (unless all criticism of Harris is also wiped from the article). These are alluded to in the lede but aren't addressed in the article. Before I made my changes I believe there was an WP:NPOV issue. I don't really care to fight for any of the other changes that I made, although if anybody sees value in them then you do have my support.LM2000 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: I like your changes - i think they improve the article and adhere to wikipedia's standards better so i have restored them. I added one more sentence of quotation from Greenwald than you had - I just want the islam section to give a fuller picture of Harris' views - if you think it is still imbalanced, perhaps we could expand that section by adding ore summary of Harris' writings on the topic Jonotrain (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain[reply]

@LM2000: As I've stated above, this article is not going to be whitewashed. Of course I have no objection to your including statements of supporters per NPOV.

@Jonotrain: I find it interesting that you would want to remove your own edits, not to mention the sudden turnabout.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No source provided has Harris self-identify as Jewish, therefore we can not label him as Jewish per WP:BLPCAT. Also note that where a person makes a clear statement in an editorial labeling a person as having a religious bias, we should be very sure that the view is mainstream. Mondoweiss does not appear to meet WP:RS for any claims of fact, therefore we can not in any way imply that the person alleging "tribal" bias is making a statement of fact, and specifically the sideways claim that the person is Jewish and has a "tribal bias". Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

@Ubikwit:-I'm just trying to make the best article and the most standards-compliant one that we can. I agree with LM2000 that the edits I made were too lengthy and gave undue weight to Greenwald, and I found that their revision kept the substance while being more compliant. My main concern is that the Islam section give an accurate portrayal of Harris' views, as well as the controversy surrounding them - and i think more space should be devoted to his own writings to do so.Jonotrain (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain[reply]

I also agree with LM2000 that the politics section is not strong at present - it doesnt give a cohesive picture of Harris' views - its more of a list of people accusing him of islamophobia - given this focus, i think it should be integrated into the On Islam section - the article doesnt become stronger if we just add more and more quotations accusing him of islamophobia - we need to actually represent his views in their specificity and let readers judge.Jonotrain (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)jonotrain[reply]

：The Political section starts out with a representative quote from Harris. Feel free to expand it at will, just don't delete any DUE material. I have moved the Mondoweiss quote there, too, where it belongs.

You are the one that added the excess Greenwald quote, and then tried to say it was UNDUE, and then removed it as well as material that I added. That seems somewhat unusual to me. Meanwhile, Greenwald is at the center of several debates with Harris, including that related to Hussain, and I haven't even mentioned the neocon connection referred to by Greenwald with a quote from David Frum. There is also the questionable quote from Harris claiming that Greenwald has tried to make him his enemy, which does seem like an UNDUE quote from a primary source that is largely irrelevant to the issues being reported in RS about the debate between Harris and Greenwald.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody wants whitewashing to occur, we just want the material presented in the best way possible. Right now we have a serious WP:QUOTEFARM problem. Note my additions from Harris supporters and how a number of people who agree with him on the issue of Islamophobia are grouped together. Individually they used very different words to explain very similar feelings. If they were given equal weight to Greenwald, Chomsky, and Hussain their comments would each be written out individually and stretched into several paragraphs. There is no reason for this "Politics" section to exist. One of the critics in that section writes a direct response to Greenwald (who appears in the Islam section), two of them make the same argument Greenwald did about Harris masking his alleged bigotry behind rationalism. I appreciate that we have limited Greenwald's comments to one paragraph but it still mostly consists of direct quotes pasted from the source. We need to summarize and paraphrase here, per WP:QUOTEFARM, the fact that we expand so much on the quotes of his critics while conflate the comments of his supporters violates WP:NPOV.LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions are not supported by the sources, and there is no quotefarm, which includes the statement.

Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text.

It would not be easier to paraphrase any of the quotes. An attempt was made on the Chomsky quote, totally obfuscating its meaning and import, for example.

The fact that there is a quote in the article that

Harris and Greenwald have clashed on numerous other occasions - Harris writes that Greenwald has "worked very hard to make himself my enemy.

is further testimony to the import and prevalence of coverage of Greenwald over any of the "supporters" to whom you refer. The coverage afforded Grenwald is minimal and concise compared to that available in RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Political" sections stays, unless you want to revert to the version when there was a "Criticisms" section in the article, the removal of which was the first attempt to whitewash it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonotrain, who added to your quotes, had no problem with my summarizations. Coverage of his supporters is also incredibly minimal (I have no idea how the quote from Harris on his dealings with Greenwald indicate a lack of supporters as eight supporters are listed three paragraphs below) compared to the RS available but WP:DUE weight is a must and there is simply no need to be verbose. I'll wait for others to respond to get more solid consensus before I revert back to the non-WP:QUOTEFARM version. You also demanded that the earlier "Criticisms" section remain in full but consensus seems to not be in your favor, this "Politics" section is nothing but a splinter of that under a different name. Every alteration I've seen to your additions seems to be in good faith and based on policy, your implication that there is a whitewashing agenda here isn't very WP:CIVIL.LM2000 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that said you weren't going to fight for your changes. Ha! What a joke. Who do you think your kidding? And Jonotrain???? The SPA that agrees to the reversion of his own edits, another joke.

I suggest that you try adding material from supports instead of deleting well-sourced material, because the next stupid edit here is going to result in an AN/I filing. How's that for civil?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jonotrain and LM2000 that the summarized version is better. I also agree with the observation that the "Political" views section is basically just more Islam/Muslim/Islamophobia-related criticism. I've reinstated that version, since Ubikwit has been the only editor to voice objection. I've also preserved the edits made by Collect, as they appear to improve the article and also address policy compliance. In addition, I've implemented the following edits:

• Changed "His writing on atheism has provoked sustained debate..." to "His writing and talks on religion have provoked debate", since he doesn't really write/talk as much about atheism as he does religion, and it is his views on religion, not atheism, which are debated. "Sustained" is an unsourced and inaccurate qualifier.
• Fixed the chopped sentence about Catholicism under the "On Christianity" section.
• Corrected the sentence, "Harris has ... also appeared on an aired debate hosted by The Huffington Post". He was unable to actually appear in the aired debate cited.
• Removed Chomsky from the sentence, "Greenwald's sentiments that Harris promotes bigotry ... are held by Noam Chomsky and ... Murtaza Hussain", as unsupported by the 3 cited sources. Greenwald and Hussain charge bigotry; Chomsky, on the other hand, criticizes "new atheists" for promoting the "state religion" of imperialism and warmongering.
• I removed the half-dozen citations inappropriately piled on to the end of a single sentence in the lead; I left one citation and moved the rest into the body of the article per WP:LEAD.
• Moved Eskow's comment out of Islam section, as it is not specifically about Islam.
• Copy editing, and a little content expansion.

Xenophrenic (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are all attributed, and you just don't like them, and are trying to detract from the noted political implications of Harris' statements.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which specific statements do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you somewhat misrepresented Eskow, and removed the recite to the Independent, one of two secondary news pieces, along with the three primary source opinion pieces they discuss, and replaced them with a single refcite to an interview, two of the participants of which are not published in RS on Harris--none that are cited, at any rate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Eskow content, as well as its relocation, is absolutely supported by the cited sources. The previous "fostering an intolerance towards Islam" wording, which goes beyond calling Harris intolerant and further accuses him of incitement, which is not supported by the cited sources, was removed. As for the "Independent" citation, I removed the half-dozen citations inappropriately piled on to the end of a single sentence in the lead; I left one citation and moved the rest into the body of the article per WP:LEAD and WP:CITEOVERKILL. If you would prefer the 1 remaining source to be the Independent citation instead, I have no problem with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree about the "Political" subsection of "Views", that has now been removed. It was just more about Harris's views on Islam and criticism of those views. Harris has commented on many other political issues, such as a gun control, stem-cell research, and wealth inequality. If we're going to have a "Political" subsection, it should focus on those things, not rehash the topic of Islam. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, could you please pay more attention to your edits? Your recent blanket revert re-inserted false information about Harris, so I undid your edit. I see you also have not responded to my concerns about the Eskow content we've been editing. Do you understand my concerns? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: No, I do not understand your concerns about Eskow, but please do not misrepresent the source. I have fixed the error about regarding an appearance, but I didn't add that in the first place and you could have easily fixed it yourself.

@Jweiss11: Why don't you go ahead and add the material to which you refer? The section is well-sourced as is, and is not a simple "rehash", but an examination of political implications, as addressed in numerous RS, and not limited exclusively to Islam.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, I or someone else could add content about those other topics, but the content in the politic section as it now stands is indeed largely a rehash of what we see in the Islam section above. The part on Israel could easily be merged into the section on Judaism. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should also note that most of the criticisms that made up that political section are already in New Atheism#Criticisms word-for-word. Other criticisms described throughout this article are directed mostly or entirely at Harris himself, these criticisms are aimed at New Atheism beliefs in particular. That isn't to say that we can't use them here, as they do mention Harris (often clustered in with other New Atheists), but I do not think the lengthy quotes criticizing beliefs held by the general movement are useful. A see also link to New Atheism#Criticisms may be a better alternative since this information is already there. Ubikwit is the only person to voice support for this politics section on talk; Jweiss11, Xenophrenic, Jonotrain, and I are opposed. That section needs to gain a consensus before it can return.LM2000 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11:I don't know what your background is, but in the social sciences there is a categorical difference between "views on religion" and "views on politics", even though they may overlap in places. Views on religions, such as Islam and Judaism, are not views on politics except where there is a direct connection between the religion and politics (e.g, theocracy), and views on politics related to criticism of religions should not be misleadingly placed in subsections on religious views. The Chomsky quote obviously doesn't belong under any category corresponding to religious views because it is a criticism of the political implications of Harris' views as a prominent New Atheist.

The original structure of the article included a Criticisms section which was deleted so as to obfuscate and/or remove critical content, particularly the Chomsky quote, and then the neoconservative connection. That would seem to be essentially the same thing you have suggested, and it is not in accord with NPOV.

@LM2000: Glad to see you have read of the Talk page and checked the references that you have been removing from the article. There is no basis for removing criticism from Harris' page because it is also elsewhere, as Harris is "one of the four horsemen" of New Atheism, as it were. And I posted the Chomsky quote there after posting it here. Chomsky and the other academic sources specifically name Harris. Do you have any policy-based arguments for trying to exclude sources? Remember, editing Wikipedia requires competence.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, whatever the practice may be by certain social scientists, the reality is that religions tend to be—and the three Abrahamic religions certainly are—political systems. When Harris and many others criticize religion, they place a particular focus political impact of religious belief and practice in the real world. That being said, in the context of Harris's views and how he has written about them, the "Political" section that you have concocted is indeed a rehash of Harris's views on Judaism and Islam. Both the Judaism and Political views sections are now both quoting the same blog post by Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel. The Political section is also functioning as a lighting rod for more criticism about Harris's views without expanding at all on those views themselves. The main problem with all your edits to this article of late is that you are structuring the article around the criticisms that Harris has received, not around his views or his work. It's like you are working backwards to introduce to the article every attack that has been made on Harris, no matter how legitimate or how unfounded and potentially defamatory, and building the article from that framework. I think it's pretty clear that you are not editing in a neutral fashion as you seem to have some investment in advancing the industry of Sam Harris-smearing here on Wikipedia. @Steeletrap: I see that you have reintroduced Ubikwit's "political" section. You should note that LM2000 has made a reasonable request above for consensus, which we currently don't have, before reintroducing this content. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: You have just engaged in WP:OR in a field with respect to which you apparently lack WP:COMPETENCE, and then you followed that with a string of personal attacks.

Do not assert that there are "problems" with my edits again. If you have issues with the content I have added, respond to it with source-based and policy-based arguments, not personal attacks.

If you intend to contribute to this article, I suggest you try building up the content you pontificate about instead of attacking other editors' work.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to comments that people make in talk pages. My comments are not personal attacks on you. They are assessments of your editing here on this article and they are indeed based on Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And did you just not assert that I lacked competence to participate here because of an observation I made about how Harris and others reasonably approach the subject of religion and politics? With the warning template you just placed on my talk page, your behavior is moving toward the absurd and the disruptive. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, I know that you know WP:V (specifically WP:ONUS) clearly states that just because something is sourced doesn't give it some sort of exemption. To the contrary, it states that it can be totally omitted and/or preserved on another page, the latter of which I just suggested. Scroll up to the see other policies linked previously in this discussion. The behavior problems haven't gotten any better since yesterday when I noted your uncivility which caused you to take this to AN/I where Robert McClenon suggested that you receive a "strong warning" and described the scene as a "tantrum".LM2000 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, regarding specifically the Eskow quotes you've been insterting, are you aware the two sources you are citing are just a subset of a much longer back-and-forth discussion over more than a half-dozen posts? I recall further on in the discussion where Eskow concedes some of Harris' points and says, "Harris’ final paragraph offers a more moderate tone than was present in his first piece. He agrees we should “reach out to Muslims, not alienate them.” Nor can I disagree that “some ideas are worse than others.” To me, the idea of classifying 1 billion people based on the actions of a few is not one of the better ideas out there. That does not mean we need to blind ourselves to the flaws, and the risks, present in any strain of religious thought. I just hope we do so in the spirit of tolerance and open-mindedness, remembering that good as well as evil has been expressed in the name of faith." And on quoting (especially blockquoting) in general, I will remind you that WP:NPOV tells us, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Xenophrenic (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: I see four, maybe five posts returned from google. Maybe you could link to the posts to which you refer and quote? I did find the piece you quote one passage from, but there is also this passage

Harris acknowledges the violent and self-contradictory nature of portions of the Bible, but suggests that Islam’s message is far less ambiguous than that of the Bible. In doing so, however, he fails to cite those Quranic passages that call for tolerance of other religions. Like the Bible, the Qu'ran appears to contradict itself in places - no more, no less. So why single out Islam? [41]

and in another piece he stated

Marty Kaplan does a fine job deconstructing Sam Harris' latest screed. Harris is now ready to pimp GOP talking points in order to make his case. My God (oops - sorry!), is there nothing this man won't say to advance himself and his fundamentalist strain of atheism?[42]

I'm not sure that you understand WP:NPOV. I note that you tried to paraphrase the Chomsky quote, for example, and rendered its meaning unintelligible; basically, that is partly due to the context of the quote and inefficieny in paraphrasing that. Meanwhile, you'll note that I have paraphrased sources, such as Eskow, for example, where possible.

I don't have anything against your adding material to the article that portrays Harris and his work in a positive manner, incidentally, but you can't take things out of context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, thank you for the permission to add content to the article. Awfully kind of you. I'll assume your previous unexplained deletion of said content was simply an oversight; I'll correct it. As for your "paraphrase of Eskow", you only added this: Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam. Two big problems with that sentence. The first part of it is totally uninformative. What misleading analysis, and about what? What inflammatory statement? The first half of your sentence says nothing more than "Mr. QQQ criticized some of Harris' stuff", and tells the reader nothing more. The last half of your sentence is inaccurate; Eskow cautioned Harris against intolerance of religion, not just Islam (and that part is already present in the article). As for the other Eskow quotes you posted, I've read all the exchanges. Were you going somewhere with that? In closing, I'm going to reiterate what NPOV tells us about quoting the hyperbole instead of the arguments of disputing sources, as you keep doing: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but it has to sink in sometime. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy enough to repeat Islam in that Eskow quote twice, and the quote about neoconservative political views is not "hyperbole". I don't know why you insist on misrepresenting that source, but for the record, here are several relevant passages from the article.

Sam Harris is on a mission to eradicate what he sees as the pernicious influence of religion from modern life. Now he’s written a misleading and shallow analysis of Islam and suicide bombers. His single-minded crusade has led him to a one-dimensional conclusion: It’s the religion, stupid.
Thus does Harris condemns his targeted faith with logic worthy of any fundamentalist preacher.
Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure. When Harris writes that “…the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world,” he’s repeating the words of neocons everywhere.
The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for moderate Muslims to indulge.
Here, Harris takes a page directly from the Pipes playbook. We, not you, have decided that your religion is not peaceful. We will therefore establish tests which you as a Muslim must pass before you are allowed to call yourself “civilized.”
Sam, if you claim to speak for reason over blind faith, where are your citations for these inflammatory statements?
While claiming to speak for “reason,” you make the following statement: We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.
These are harsh and divisive words. Books are sacred to many faiths, and are revered by many non-religious folk for their poetry and wisdom. In your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance. Sam, in the name of reason, please turn back.[43]

I note that you just inserted peacocky promotional material into the article, but then deleted the most offensive portionhere. Of course, material from supporters of Harris and even primary sources from his blog are useful when cited in a policy-compliant manner.

There are a high-quality per-reviewed academic sources making very incisive criticism of Harris' work, with one academic characterizing him a "pundit", and as one of the intellectuals "the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the repetition, but allow me to quote myself: I've read all the exchanges. Were you going somewhere with that? As for "inserted peacocky promotional material", that wasn't me. And the edit you linked to was a pasted paragraph from a source that was accidently left in the body of the article, but immediately removed. I often have pieces of sources pasted into the edit window so I can see them while I'm typing, so don't worry, it was never intended to be part of the Wikipedia article (that would be a blatant copyvio, if it was left in). I'm interested in these peer-reviewed sources you just mentioned. Care to be a little more descriptive? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you won't be answering my question about what all those quotes are supposed to be for. Not a problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one[44]. In it he takes up points raised by another academic, Jackson Lears. Tina Beattie is also a professor.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; a book by a lay-priest/ex-History teacher from a small liberal arts school. Not peer-reviewed, and it's never been cited, but that could be because it's just a few months old. What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to denigrate the professor? The Amazon page describes him as the "President Emeritus of Trinity College", and you should be aware that he has a PhD from Yale. The book is a monograph from Palgrave Macmillan[45], which is PEER-REVIEWED. Why would you say it isn't? https://books.google.co.jp/books?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following be in this biography:

Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."^[1] 13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• No. — While a miniscule number of commentators (are we up to 5 now?) have bemoaned Harris' critical treatment of the Islam religion, even they have not gone so far as to attribute his stance to Jewish tribalism rather than to his atheism. It's a polemic screed by a nobody published on a website with no reputation for factual reliability. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Taking that specific passage misrepresents the basic argument Sayeed makes. TFD (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Sayeed is not notable, and his opinions in a blog are therefore also not notable. I suggest that using a non-notable opinion from a non-notable person writing in a non-notable blog is not considered proper in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No —This is an article about Harris, not about Sayeed. - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No We should not be using such contentious quotes in a BLP when they come from sources of such dubious reliability.LM2000 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No I don't see what misrepresentation TFD means, but I think the quote is accurate. In lieu of actual independent secondary sources drawing attention to this piece I don't see why we should include his opinion though. Harris often hits many newspaper columns after all. Second Quantization (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

So far no source has been presented to say that Harris has self-identified as "Jewish." Is this quote from Sayeed proper where a number of opinions saying Harris may be opposed to Islam itself a valid commentary in the BLP? Is "Mondoweiss" a WP:RS? Is Theodore Sayeed a notable person whose opinions are allowed,properly cited as opinions?

I note "Mondoweiss" provides absolutely no information about Sayeed, so we have no reason to believe he is "notable" as such. Nor does he even get one mention in the NYT archives. If he is not notable, then his opinion is likely also not notable. "Mondoweiss" is described by the NYT as an "anti-Zionist" website. [46] and does not fit into any normal category for WP:RS either. So a blog used for comments by a non-notable person seems to fail the requirements for use in any BLP. Inaddition, the apparent result would be to label a person as "Jewish" who does not so self-identify, contrary to WP:BLPCAT Collect (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss is RS, as you are well aware, and Sayeed does not have to be "notable", as you are well aware, only article topics have to be notable. WP:TE. False consensus against policy is not WP:CONSENSUS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss is a Weiss & Horowitz blog; not a reliable source for the assertion of fact. If you are going to push a narrative that Harris is critical of Islam because he is allegedly Jewish, rather than because he is an atheist, you'll discover that Wikipedia policy forbids the method you are trying to employ. In addition, you've been recently introducing a great number of hyperbolic quotes from "critics"; perhaps you should revist this part of the NPOV policy and try to edit more in line with those requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed. You are WP:GAMING. See you at AN/I!--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat all you want; Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking the wrong approach to the article. Instead of identifying sources and reflecting what they say, we are looking for sources to connect the subject's controversial views and his Jewishness. TFD (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeed is a primary source for the opinions of himself. What evidence is there of due weight from reliable secondary sources? Second Quantization (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, Sayeed has zero notability in the matter. Collect (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Quantization: In the Guardian piece, Greenwald links to and praises that specific piece by Sayeed, stating "As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".

@The Four Deuces: The quote appears to have been made in response to a statement by Harris on Islamic tribalism in relation to the political dimension of Harris' writings on Israel, as per the first quote in the Political" section. I was never married to that statement, just the political import Sayeed's piece applies to Harris' writings, and so I replaced the quote with this

In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics.

Though Collect has not tried to delete the Political section, Zenophrenic and LM2000 have, and that is against the sources and mades imply because they don't like the sources. Xenophrenic refers to Greenwald, Hussain and Lean as "jokers", for example[47], while admitting Harris has "responded extensively to them".

There was no need for an RfC on this specific sentence, nor a BLP/N thread, but at least it has accrued some participation here.

My basic objective was to add support to the existence of the "Political" section, the use of Sayeed is somewhat secondary to that, as I have raised the fact that he appears to have no journalistic publications aside from Mondoweiss, though he is still RS for his opinions published in Mondoweiss. Sayeed's emphasis on the political dimension to Harris' writings has been seconded and praised by Greenwald, giving the source WEIGHT in conjuntion with the Guardian piece as well as the two news articles that have commented extensively on it and its related discussions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I referred to some of the commentators you cited as "jokers", after you referred to the subject of this BLP as nothing more than a "PUNDIT"; are you now indicating you wish to ratchet down your rhetoric? And when editors express a concern with a source you cite, and explain their reasoning for their concern, you don't brush them off as if they simply "don't like" your source. Pay attention to what they said, and address the concerns. (And as an aside: just because one commentator agrees with the assertions of another commentator, that doesn't make the assertion accurate or the commentator notable.) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: Harris is a neuroscientist that engages in publishing popular works that relate to philosophy. His has not been published in a single academic publication, not even a journal, relating to philosophy. Many commentators have characterized the political nature of his statements, with some labeling him an ideologue. I hadn't been aware of the RfC at the time I characterized him as a pundit, but my basic views haven't changed.

Sayeed's piece in Mondoweiss is an RS opinion piece primary source that has been linked to and praised by another, well-known commentator (notable enough to have a WP article) in a mainstream news publication that is a secondary source. As I said elsewhere, notabilty does not apply to commentators, only articles. The question asked by Second Quantization above is addressed by the reference in the Guardian piece.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most interesting personal opinions. He is not an academic philosopher at an academic institution, and therefore would not be published as one in academic publications, you observed correctly. He is, however, repeatedly cited in academic publications (that was mentioned above). Many commentators have indeed commented on his assertions, with varying degrees of comprehension and accuracy, that is also correct. As for Sayeed and Greenwald specifically, one opinion piece agreeing with another opinion piece doesn't mean anything in this discussion about contentious assertions about a living person. Let me know if I need to start quoting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, passage and verse for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Harris is a neuroscientist", just as a note, he's neither a working neuroscientist nor a philosopher. think he had 1 or 2 publications after his thesis maybe and that's about it; nothing in years because he's not a neuroscientist, he has a PhD in neuroscience. He's an author who writes for a popular audience (not that there's anything wrong with that, all the power to him). Some people insist on calling him a philosopher and neuroscientist in the article, and I don't care enough to object. I think it makes wikipedia look stupid, but whatever, I don't care enough. On Greenwald, he is not the sort of secondary source I meant, I was looking for a detached secondary source, while Greenwald has his own agenda and is actively involved in major controversies with Harris, Second Quantization (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refocus

The sentence at issue in this RfC is not really an issue.

I'd like the discussion to refocus on the current citation from the Sayeed piece in the restored Political section.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how RfCs work. A question was posed, and I rather think the consensus is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP:CONSENSUS for either of the following edits:

[48] (edit summary: Stop removing sourced material - last warning) adding substantially to the BLP or is

[49] supported by consensus of the editors here? 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the added material to add nothing of value to the WP:BLP, and thus suggest we find a consensus based on that second edit. Collect (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The largest section of disputed or problematic text reflected in the Diffs you provided appears to be the newly added "Political" views subsection. One objection, with which I agree, is that most of that content is just a re-hash of the Islam view criticism. I find the reimagining of Harris' criticisms of Islam into "political views" by a couple commentators (Sayeed, Greenwald, etc.), just because "neocons" agree with the criticisms, to be unpersuasive. In addition, the "Political" views section only contained opinions, speculation and criticisms on what views Harris might hold, instead of political views Harris has actually acknowledged having.

An additional area of contention appears to be between attempts to insert as many hyperbolic criticism quotations (with blockquote highlighting, no less) as possible versus an impartial summary coverage of significant and valid criticisms. The second diff shows a more policy-compliant version. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is one source that associates Harris with scientific racism, while there are a number of sources that describe Harris as making Islamophobic statements.

First, there is a qualified difference between accusation of practicing "scientific racism" as opposed to racism. I think that more could be said, but it doesn't belong in the lead on the basis of a single source, particularly since Greenwald goes to the trouble to dissociate his own comments from an accusation of "racism", even though he states that he understands Hussain's view and characterizes it as rational.

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I've long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.
Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing, specifically, if anything? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede right off the bat that my following comment is only intended as exactly this, a comment, not a proposal; I merely wish to defend the inclusion of material critical of Sam Harris's stance on Islam with the following observation:

Even on RationalWiki, which is explicitly supportive of New Atheism in general and Sam Harris in particular, his comments on Islam are severely criticised by characterising them as akin to far-right theses in the article on him and further critical points are made here. I am fully aware that RW is nowhere close to a RS, and the first article does no more than contrast citations from primary sources, but the second article does cite non-primary sources and explains lucidly central problems with Harris's views.

PZ Myers, who is notably more liberal/left-leaning than the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett), also disagrees with Harris – even though he agrees that the term "Islamophobia" is often applied wrongly and considers Islam just as bad as Harris (while the comments of his fans do not all agree with these religion-badness comparisons)! – and even accuses Harris of racism. So, it's not just his enemies who criticise Harris and accuse him of racism and irrational Islam-hate, but even his explicitly antireligious allies. That has to count for something. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just placed a POV tag on the "Political" section, per Ubikwit's reinsertion of content there that he has assembled of late. This section, as stands now and as it has stood in a number of iterations over the past few days per Ubikwit's edits, fails to advance a neutral point of view about the subject, Sam Harris, and his views. Ubikwit's "Political" section presents two quotes that are largely a rehash of Harris's views on Islam and Judaism described in sections above. This is followed by a lengthy discourse of negative criticism about Harris's views. Thus, the section serves not to expand on Harris's views, but, rather to serve as a repository for criticism, some of it likely distorting and defamatory. I've already reverted a least one similar edit by Ubikwit in the last day or two. I don't wish to engage in an edit war. Can others please comment here so that we can reach a consensus? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One approach would be to revert the article to 02:40, 9 February 2015, then see what recent edits should be re-added. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: You seem to fail to realize that the article is loaded with primary source-based passages from Harris' books and blog.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources. I note that there is the entire statement Harris provided to the WP in the "On Islam" section, for example. And about half of the "On Religion" section ("Views" in this version[50])is sourced to primary and self-published sources.

Your assertion of a "rehash" is way off the mark, and we've been through this before.

I suggest that you simply find secondary sources describing "the subject, Sam Harris, and his views" as you put it. Wikipedia is not primarily interested in what Sam Harris wants others to think about his views, but about what reliably published secondary sources have to say about "the subject, Sam Harris, and his views".

Though primary and self-published sources can be used, I suggest having a look at WP:SELFPUB.

NPOV is about presenting a balanced representation of the viewpoints published in reliable secondary sources. Harris is a public figure, and that policy applies.

The organization of the article is problematic due to the number of topics involved, many of which have political implications that have been noted and commented on. I've added some material from the writings of three academics, but that is hardly exhaustive, even of the sources used. The Lears article is available online.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, you're missing point. If there are too many primary sources or too many direct quotes from primary sources, then take them out. That's a separate issue. The issue here is the "Political" section in question. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think that is a basis for excluding the material included, which is obviously based on RS. If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material.

You are not producing any material based on secondary sources that I have tried to exclude based on DUE or WEIGHT, for example. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion of support for Harris's views in other sections. However, your concocted "Political" section is a mirror of some of those other sections, which you've used to create a warehouse for attack on Harris under the guise of further exploration of Harris's views. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are conflating different aspects of his views and different takes on his views vis-a-vis politics and religion.

If you read the Lears piece, for example, I think you'll find that I have represented the points he makes (a couple of them) in a fair manner, without "attacking". Lears piece serves as part of the support for a peer-reviewed publication addressing the (mis)use of history by Harris and the New Atheists.

The "Political" section is not "concocted" any more than any of the others are. And the other sections were created because Xenophrenic deleted the "Criticisms" section so that he could exclude degrade and obfuscate viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like[51],^{[failed verification]} starting with the Chomsky quote, and simply deleting the material altogether after I added the Political section to accommodate his removal of the Csection[52].^{[failed verification]}

Just to prove that I'm not acting in bad faith, there was a response to the Lears piece by a professor from Harvard named Steve Pinker speaking in support of positivism, though he only mentions Harris once in passing.[53] And there was a rejoinder in response to Pinker's piece, here.

These are issues that scholars take seriously, and there is no basis for keeping reliably sourced statements that reflect negatively on Harris' work out of the article, and I again refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Considering that Harris' books are not peer-reviewed academic publications, he is probably going to continue to be on the receiving end of a lot of criticism for trying to deal with highly-cultivated topics in a polemic manner and in a popular idiom. You'll note that Pinker doesn't necessarily defend Harris per se, he attempts to counterpose science to the humanities in response to Lears, a historian criticizing positivism.

The other book is by a theologian and addresses religious perspectives versus New Atheists perspectives with respect to their respective socio-political implications, etc. There's a section called "Sam Harris, Islam and Torture". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:56, 13:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, you still appear to misunderstand the nature of the disagreements here. As a result, you are doing a lot of arguing for or against things which aren't in contention. Perhaps it would help if we cleared a few things up first. While Harris may be considered a "new atheist", not everything written about new atheists automatically applies to him. There is a whole separate article for generalizations about New Atheists. Likewise, when writers like Lears say that the atheist's plea to rely on science instead of religion sounds like "positivism", and then further goes on to say, "Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism ... scientific racism ... imperialism ... eugenics ... Nazis ... yada yada", you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did. And if you want to discuss positivism, there is an article for that. Using a three-step synthesis to justify inserting "racism" into an article about a living person is a violation of BLP (as well as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and others). Thirdly, you asked, "If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material." -- No. You do not get to insert "Professor QQQ said Harris beats his wife", just because you found it in a book, and then demand editors add "countervailing material" to the contentious claim. It simply does not get added to the article in the first place. You also do not get to insert the allegation into a separate section you made when other sources (or Harris himself) already refute the allegation elsewhere in the article. If you'd like to add information of legitimate encyclopedic value to the reader, propose the text and source. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: What are you talking about? Are you sure you understood the source? I assume that you are asserting that you read it. I suggest that you look at this page from the Painter book commenting about the Lears text[54] Oh, but wait, let me just quote it for everyone

[Pinker] takes offense at a passage by Lears on positivism, Social Darwinism, and "pop-evolutionary notions of progress as well as scientific racism and imperialism."

Second, don't ever speak to me with a tone of authority again.

Thirdly, keep the offensive bullshit about wife beating to yourself.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I sure I understood the source? You'll have to be more specific. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is saturated with blockquotes and extended quotations which offer little actual value to the BLP. After the current RfC is closed, I shall propose one for opinions on the amount of such material which would attain DUE weight, and not oversaturate a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beattie quote ("he makes no attempt at all to mask his contempt, not only for radical Islamism but for Muslims in general") is certainly defamatory. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: How is that defamatory? Once again, I'm going to refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are no BLP violations in the text I've posted, Beattie is a professor of theology, and the gist of the quoted statement is repeated by other RS throughout the article. That is a public position Harris has adopted, and numerous secondary sources have addressed that position in critical terms. I note that there was an attempt by multiple editors to delete or obfuscate a related statement in the lead.

What is supposed to occur in a case like where there is a disagreement about a sourced criticism is for the disagreeing editor(s) to find other sources that support a different POV, and then add those in a manner according to WEIGHT and DUE. The lack of such a provision of countervailing sources is telling. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's defamatory because Beattle is essentially calling Harris a bigot without evidence. This is because she falsely conflates his criticism of ideas with hate of a group of people. Her professorship doesn't trump this fact, nor does the notability of anyone else who makes the same claim. I could find a few PhDs and a slew of notable figures who claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President based on a forged American citizenship. Nonetheless, that is still nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

The onus is not on me to necessarily to provide countervailing sources, especially when they are already provided in the article. The onus on all of us, you included, to develop articles in a neutral fashion. That being said, this article already provides notable sources, other than Harris, who countervail claims like the ones Beattie has made. In the "On Islam" section we have: "Amongst those who have endorsed Harris' theory that the term "Islamophobia" has been used to silence critics of Islam are: Nina Burleigh,[54] Ronald A. Lindsay,[49], Lawrence M. Krauss,[55] Josh Zepps,[49] Jerry Coyne and Andrew Zak Williams of the New Statesman.[56] Writing in the New York Post, Rich Lowry defended Harris and Maher by arguing that their liberals critics are unable to "talk frankly about the illiberalism of much of the Muslim world" as "[i]t entails resisting the reflex to consider any criticism of the Third World as presumptive racism."[57]" This balances, to some degree, the criticism between from Atran and Greenwald just above. Your "Political" section is essentially a one-sided mirror of the "On Islam" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that "balances" is inaccurate, as there is a large imbalance, and the bias is readily apparent in terms of DUE and WEIGHT. Some of the statements in that paragraph attempt to preempt criticism, and they are shallow and without substance. For example, there is a statement "Gad Saad, who wrote in Psychology Today that "Sam Harris and countless other true liberals" in the paragraph to which you refer, but others question his so-called liberalness, and you deleted the refcite for that source (HP "Atheists for Cheney" by Kaplan). In WP terms, Saad's "true liberals" statement would be "puffery" or "peacocky", because "true liberals" is basically a meaningless, yet loaded term. Meanwhile, the paragraph you refer to not only calls Harris a "true liberal", it also states, "Rich Lowry defended Harris and Maher by arguing that their liberals critics are unable to "talk frankly about the illiberalism of much of the Muslim world"", asserting that the liberal critics aren't really liberal? That is a contradiction, on the one hand, and on the other, the statements identifying Harris with right-wing neocon policies have also been deleted. Sorry, not even in the NPOV ballpark, and not even clear what the POV being presented is.

A couple of those individuals seem to be adherents of a form of "scientism"/atheism, and the statements quoted are somewhat facile, and on the level of mass-media punditry compared to the in depth analysis of Harris' publications by scholars of history, theology, politics and the Middle East as well as a high-profile journalist that is constitutional and civil rights attorney.

I have steadily improved the level of sourcing, now having three academics with articulate criticisms based on analysis of Harris works, which they quote from extensively. Academic sources are generally afforded the most weight, and though I culled only one representative quote from Beattie, who is a scholar of religion. Gad Saad is a professor of marketing and consumer behavior; in other words, he is hardly an expert in the relevant field(s) (nor are any of the other people cited above: Krauss is a physicist, Burleigh a journalist, Lindsay an attorney, Zepps a "media personality", Coyne a biologist, etc.)

Moreover, you and others are trying to censure the statements of bona fide scholars in fields related to Harris' popular works, while presenting Harris as a bona fide scholar in the fields in which he has published popular works. You haven't produced a single source from an academic in history, theology, philosophy, or politics that defends any of Harris statements themselves. As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. It is not a coincidence that Jackson Lears suggested he spend more time in the lab than pontificating about things outside of his field of expertise, basically.

Lastly, Beattie's statement is attributed to her, not stated as a fact, so there is absolutely nothing defamatory in terms of Wikipedia's presentation of that statement or any of the others. Beattie is RS on Harris having published a monograph on New Atheism that includes much material, including a dedicated section, on Harris. Obviously, NPOV requires the presentation of her POV.

I've refrained from posting quotes that excerpt Harris works, because there are too many and the analysis is generally what is more important. But, the following is a sampling taken only from the Guardian article, but if you've read Lears or looked at Beattie, you'll know that there are many passages addressed, and I did post one from Painter, with the accompanying commentary.

Quotes related to Harris on Islam from Guardian article[55] (including citations)

1. In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."
2. This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed([56]) that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam."
3. He has also decreed([57]) that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."
4. Yes, he criticizes Christianity, but he reserves the most intense attacks and superlative condemnations for Islam, as well as unique policy prescriptions of aggression, violence and rights abridgments aimed only at Muslims. As the atheist scholar John L Perkins wrote about Harris' 2005 anti-religion book: "Harris is particularly scathing about Islam."
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

statement is attributed to her, not stated as a fact, so there is absolutely nothing defamatory

Incorrect. Attributing a contentious statement does not magically strip it of its defamatory nature.

I have steadily improved the level of sourcing, now having three academics with articulate criticisms...

Perhaps you'll share them with us, along with your proposed wording for addition to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: The wording I've already proposed is there in the edit history. When I want to add something else, I will, according to BRD. This might just go to ArbCom before that, though, depending on the level of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI, because you have continually violated WP:BLPREMOVE. Note that said policy states.

Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

But you just keep making empty claims and reverts of very well-sourced material and falsely accused me of violating BLP.

Remember, there is an essay about competence because there are problems associated with a lack thereof, and sometimes the issue has to be raised. It is not an insult or personal attack to question someone's competence when they seem unable to comprehend the subject matter at issue in an article or the statements made in sources, particularly when the sources are by bona fide scholars for a fairly sophisticated audience, because incompetence becomes disruptive when people persistently adhere to notions that are either dispelled and disproved by the sources, or are simply a sign of unwavering bias reflected in a refusal to acknowledge and learn.

You've misrepresented at least one source in more than one way, and you have claimed that I have engaged in SYNTH and misrepresented a source that it appears you simply didn't understand. I'm going to post another quote above, directly from the Lears piece. The seventeen page book review is fairly complex and broad in scope, and was written as a comprehensive review of not one, but three books by Harris.

Allow me to further note here that you in this case, the objection has been made with respect to my paraphrasing of the material, as opposed to the use of block quotes.

I'm going to ask you how the content I've proposed for the "Political" subsection could be integrated into the article. And in this case, I'm referring to the structure of the article, which you are by and large responsible for, having deleted the Criticisms section and moved that content to the "Views" subcategories, and having subsequently deleted the "Political" subsection and its content several times, claiming BLP violations where there are none, etc. Are you denying that there is political content to Harris' statements, as addressed and criticized in RS, including those by mainstream scholars and news commentators? Are you in agreement with LM2000 and Jweiss11 that, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between politics and religion, or however you interpret their statements?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit [58] to this BLP proper? 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• No. — Of course it wasn't. I even went through the trouble to move much of his problematic addition here, and pointed out several issues that we could work on. He reverted without so much as a response. Improper. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Simply an improper edit from the word "go." Collect (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No A section featuring two block quotes followed by nothing but total condemnation of a subject is not policy compliant.LM2000 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This material has been discussed in the past, and so far only one editor seems to require it in the BLP. Query: Does the edit violate any part whatsoever of WP:BLP in whole or part? Does it violate WP:MOS in any way whatsoever with regard to use of quotes and blockquotes? Does it violate in any way whatsoever the non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV? Is the edit summary

Restore sourced material deleted in WP:GAMING revert, will fix punctuation and refcite errors, let me know where they are if I miss any. (

indicative of a collegial desire for WP:CONSENSUS? Collect (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The section Political appears particularly problematic. Firstly, as I tried to outline in the article before, primary sourced material shouldn't really be present in any significant amount, particularly considering the vast array of sources on Harris. Secondly, only the most inflamatory comments about Harris appear to have been chosen rather than any fair analysis. If someone read the section, all they come away with is the impression that a lot of opinion pieces don't like Harris's but it's rather thin on actual facts about Harris's positions and actions etc whether they be reflect well or badly on Harris. Here is an example: "Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists". That's just lazy. What are the specific arguments missed? Why not state them fairly rather than word it this way as though it were a fact that some things were overlooked? The reader is none the wiser after reading that sentence. Second Quantization (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Politics" is a vague word which encompasses an endless amount of topics, including religion which often overlaps with politics; this section seems less interested in presenting Harris' views than it does piling additional criticism of his views on Islam. The massive amount of criticism is clearly UNDUE and violates NPOV. The presentation of the quotes without summarization is an WP:IMPARTIAL vio. A big chunk of the information is general criticism of the beliefs of New Atheist leaders and has already been pasted in full at New Atheism#Criticisms, where it is better suited than this BLP. This version put an end to the vagueness; "Social and economic politics" is more precise and Harris' views in regards to religion are contained in their correct positions.LM2000 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LM2000, I agree. These are exactly the points I have tried to make above, but you have may stated them a bit more succinctly than I did. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Quantization just paraphrased problem #7 listed in the section just above. I have watched this editor repeatedly insert opinions from Lears, Sayeed, Greenwald, etc., and I wondered what Harris had to say about all these; I found this (which mentions many of the detractors Ubikwit is determined to showcase) - Wrestling the Troll. Having encyclopedically handled criticism, point of view and unflattering information can be a good thing, and no one wants to see this article become an extension-mouthpiece for the views of the subject. But I find some of what he says in his own defense near the end of that column compelling:

Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims. [...] None of us know what our online lives will look like in five years. But we know that the Internet does not forget. And every day I confront the evidence of harm done to my reputation, and to the reputations of others, by people who seem accountable to no one apart from a growing army of trolls.

Wikipedia should be a little more accountable. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Quantization: What is the relation to your assertion about primary sources to the material in the Political section? Can you be more specific? Two of the books are by academics, and the "lazy" quote you mention comes from a peer-reviewed book that supports professor Lears statements. I could add more, and maybe I will, but I'd rather read the entire book, first--same goes for Battie, but at least I have her book. Some points made in that book would overlap other statements, and since I don't have the book, the sentence I added to show that Lears statements have support in peer-reviewed secondary sources, and shows that Harris' statements misrepresent/deny history in a manner that has political implications. The book itself is called "NA Denial of History".

@Second Quantization: Incidentally, self proclaimed was picked up from the source that was deleted from the refcites Atheists for Cheney, which actually says "self-professed" (my mistake there)

There's nothing like an apostate Democrat to gladden the heart of a Republican. From David Horowitz to Zell Miller, the I-was-blind-but-now-I-can-see caucus has given plenty of ammo to the right to demonize the left. But I wonder whether self-professed liberal Sam Harris's new attack -- "liberals are soft on terrorism" -- will make it into the RNC's I-told-you-so talking points.

There is nothing strange about it at all, because a number of RS have associated him with a-liberal political factions and policies. His self-representation of his 'liberal bona fides' in primary sources like the LA Times article are not what matter most.

Here are a couple of other quotes from Lears

The politics of Harris’s argument are rooted in the Manichaean moralism of Samuel Huntington’s 1993 article in Foreign Affairs about the “clash of civilizations” between the West and an emerging “Islamic-Confucian” civilization.
Harris’s tunnel vision leads him to overlook the roots of radical Islam, including the delusion of a revived caliphate, in the twentieth-century politics of imperial rivalries and anti-imperial resistance.
Harris is oblivious to this moral crisis. His self-confidence is surpassed only by his ignorance, and his writings are the best argument against a scientific morality—or at least one based on his positivist version of science and ex cathedra pronouncements on politics, ethics and the future of humanity.
The description fits Harris all too aptly, as he wanders from neuroscience into ethics and politics. He may well be a fine neuroscientist. He might consider spending more time in his lab.

@LM2000: Statements about "right-wing neoconservative views" "imperialism", the "national-security state", the clash of civilizations", etc. are outside the narrowly confined scope of "Social and economic politics". Those statements are sourced to multiple RS, with some making the same claims.

Criticism of Harris is widespread, coming from experts in various academic disciplines from theology to politics as well as public intellectuals and news sources--not directly from me. There is nothing that is UNDUE or violates NPOV, because all of the criticisms are well-sourced, and not one of the people commenting in this thread has produced a singe counter argument from RS. That in and of itself borders on being tendentious, because we edit according to reliably published statements.

If you read the Lears piece, for example, you'll find that my presentation of the gist of his statements is efficient and not presented in an impartial tone, as can be seen from Lears more scathing statements about Harris posted above, which I have not included.

@Xenophrenic: You'll note that I excluded the Sayeed sentence from the latest version, because it isn't necessary and there wasn't, not because it isn't RS. Are you trying to assert that Jackson Lears is a troll?

In the overtly and excessively self-serving self-published source from which you quote, I suggest you read a little further down the page for Harris' response (more accurately, lack thereof) to Lears, despite Harris being harangued by some of his followers.

So, the same response to Jackson Leer’s [sic] deconstruction of your work. What, precisely, was “too idiotic to merit a response?” It seemed like a very fair and factual attack on your work, although I must admit it’s been sometime [sic] since I read The End Of Faith.

There are no BLP violations, and you have falsely accused me of that again, despite my having asked you politely on numerous occasions to specifically identify any such violation. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you stopped pushing the Sayeed stuff. Yay? Yes, the Harris blog I quoted from is self-published and serves himself and his readers — why would it be anything but? No, you did not quote Harris' response, and no, it was not to Lears - read it again, more carefully this time? Thanks for the note, but I do not see that you have made a point. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Above, you said "There is nothing that is UNDUE or violates NPOV, because all of the criticisms are well-sourced..." - No. "Well sourced" has nothing to do with UNDUE WEIGHT or NPOV. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: Aside from the fact that this is a non-neutrally worded RfC and that all of those alleging BLP violations refuse to raise such issues at the relevant notice board, reverting content out of the article because you don't like it is not editing in a neutral manner. Almost every version I add includes compromise text and improved sourcing. No one arguing to keep criticism out of the article has produced RS supporting their editorial bias against the academic sources, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Then let's discuss. First, what is it that you think needs to be discussed? Is this the proper forum/thread?

You have just engaged in a revert without contributing a single byte of content to this article as far as I can tell, and you have reverted out material sourced to scholarly RS.

Let me put that another way, none of the editors reverting the RS out of the article have been discussing or editing in good faith here, because they are attempting to ignore or denigrate high-quality sources because they don't like what the sources say.

Refer to WP:PUBLICFIGURE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know the drill—AGF; respond to issues raised; establish consensus before repeating contested edits; there is no rush. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might you or someone kindly close the prior RfC? No one has demurred on what appears to be the result there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]